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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; 'List' implies read-only, and it usefully discloses that in a team workspace each task reports whose it is. It says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, or return shape for a potentially large task set.

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?

Two dense sentences with pipe-delimited enumerations and zero filler; the core action leads and the qualifiers follow. The parenthetical definitions are slightly compressed but each phrase earns its place.

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?

For a 3-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the filtering semantics are well covered, but nothing is said about result volume, ordering, or pagination, which an agent needs to know when listing 'open' or 'done' tasks.

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 only 33%, but the description compensates well: every filter enum value is defined and 'mine: true' is explained as keeping own plus unassigned tasks. The workspace parameter is already documented in the schema, so the description adds real meaning beyond it.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('List tasks') and enumerates exactly what can be listed via the filter values, which separates it cleanly from write siblings like create_task and update_task. It does not, however, differentiate itself from other listing tools such as followups_list or agent_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?

The filter definitions effectively explain how to scope a query (inbox = unscheduled To-dos, not Someday/Later this week; open = all not done), which implies usage. But there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus the other task-related listing siblings, and no note on defaults.

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