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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the project-versus-personal scope distinction, but says nothing beyond annotations about defaults (e.g., completed=false returning only open tasks) or pagination behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key scoping decision. No filler or restatement of the tool name beyond what is necessary.

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?

With a fully described 9-parameter schema, rich annotations, and an output schema, the definition needs only high-level scoping context, which it provides. It could mention that the default result set is limited to open tasks and that results are paginated, but those details are recoverable from the schema.

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%, including detailed semantics for due_date_after/before, priority, sort, and page size, so the schema carries the burden. The description only echoes the projectId behavior already documented in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List tasks') and immediately clarifies the two scoping modes: project tasks via projectId versus personal tasks when omitted. It is clear enough to act on without opening the schema, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling read tools like xtiles_get_task or xtiles_list_projects.

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?

It gives a concrete condition for projectId ('Provide projectId to list project tasks, or omit for your personal tasks'), which is useful routing guidance. However, it never names an alternative tool (e.g., xtiles_get_task for a single task) or states when not to use this tool, so guidance stops at the parameter level.

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