get_agent_tasks

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

No annotations provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states 'shows tasks' without indicating that this is a read-only operation or disclosing any side effects. No mention of pagination, filtering behavior, or that results are limited to a specific agent.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) but at the cost of necessary information. It lacks structure (e.g., no front-loaded key points) and omits crucial details about tool behavior and usage.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to explain how parameters like 'status', 'priority', or pagination controls work together. An agent cannot sufficiently understand the tool's capabilities from this description alone.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 11 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score applies. No insights into parameter relationships or required combinations.

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?

Description states 'Muestra las tareas asignadas a un agente especifico' which clearly indicates the verb (shows) and resource (tasks). However, it could be more specific about the exact filtering scope. The brackets around [query] are ambiguous and don't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_tasks'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_tasks', 'get_agent_assignments', 'get_overdue_tasks'). The description fails to provide context or exclusions, leaving the agent uncertain about optimal use cases.

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