calendar_tasks

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that tasks are not in the provider, how due dates are shown, which task fields are returned, the parent-then-subtask ordering, and the title-plus-occurrence addressing convention used by other task operations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and then adds useful return-value details. It is mostly efficient, though the output-field enumeration is dense and the final addressing note is more about the task ecosystem than this specific call.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately enumerates the task fields returned and explains subtask ordering. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool, though it leaves read-only/non-destructive behavior implicit rather than stated explicitly and does not discuss pagination or result limits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully, including the default list behavior and include_completed. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that the operation is scoped to one list.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource: listing Google Tasks for one list, and clarifies the Calendar-app view. It also distinguishes this list operation from the other task ops that address tasks by title, so an agent can identify what the tool does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by 'List Google Tasks of one list' and the note that other task ops address tasks by title, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives such as calendar_task_lists or calendar_task_update. The schema references calendar.task_lists for discovering list names, but the description itself provides no when-to-use/when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.