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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the exact return shape ({agent, agent_id, tasks}), a 20-task cap per agent, and the degraded 'partial: true' response when some agents cannot be read. It omits permission/auth requirements and whether include_done defaults to false, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the scoping condition and the resource, then params, then return shape, then the sibling pointer. Dense but every clause carries information; the long parenthetical state list is the only mildly heavy element and it removes the need for a separate state reference.

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?

Covers return structure, the 20-task limit, and the partial-read failure mode despite there being no output schema and no annotations, and defines both parameters. Only default values and any auth/rate context are missing, which is minor for a read-only listing 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'agent' is defined as a name or id, and 'include_done' is defined as including done tasks. It does not state the default value for include_done or whether 'agent' accepts multiple values, which is the remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb (list) plus resource (the user's agents' tasks), enumerates the possible states, and explicitly scopes it to clients outside Caddie (T3 Code, Claude Code, Codex). It also names the sibling that covers the other case ('Caddie's own agents: use list_agents'), so it is unambiguously distinguishable from list_agents and task_status.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition (clients outside Caddie acting for the user) and names the alternative tool for the complementary case (list_agents for Caddie's own agents). An agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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