My open work

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the scope (all open tasks assigned to the user) and grouping logic (overdue/today/this week/later), which is useful. However, it does not mention the effect of include_closed on grouping, potential large volumes, or explicitly state that the operation is read-only.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core functionality and followed by specific usage scenarios. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete: it covers what the tool does, the grouping, and when to use it. It does not describe the return format or explicitly contrast with search_tasks, but these are minor omissions for a personal task list tool.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters, including a clear description of include_closed with its default. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it returns every open task assigned to the user, grouped by overdue/today/this week/later. It differentiates itself from siblings by focusing on personal tasks across the whole workspace, making it distinct from search_tasks or get_task.

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?

The description explicitly names use cases: standup, 'what's on my plate', and backlog sweep, positioning this as the go-to tool for these. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the strong recommendation gives clear contextual guidance.

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