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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful project-selection rule (prefer workspace config's projectName over API key default) and clarifies filter semantics. However, it does not mention output shape, pagination, sorting, or whether all projects/tasks are returned by default, so some behavioral gaps remain.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed immediately by filter guidance and a concise project-selection note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 list operation with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main selection behavior and project resolution rule well. It lacks explicit pagination/return-format guidance, but an agent can invoke and interpret the result correctly for most cases.

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 60%, leaving projectName and status without full descriptions. The description repeats the filter parameter names and adds value by explaining 'standalone' and the projectName/config precedence, but it does not substantially enrich the semantics of every parameter.

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 verb and resource are explicit: 'List tasks of a project.' The filter list (epicId, status, standalone, assignee) makes the operation specific and distinguishes it from single-task retrieval (get_task) or other list_* siblings.

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 clearly states what the tool is for and how filters narrow the list, giving clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_task or say when not to use this tool, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for bulk/filtered task listing.

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