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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the prompt-injection warning that text fields shaped {"untrusted_text": …} are agent/repo-authored and must be treated as data. That is real behavioral guidance not present in structured fields.

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, both earning their place: the first front-loads what is listed and the status scope, the second delivers the security constraint. No filler or 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?

There is no output schema, so the description should ideally describe the return shape and pagination behavior, which it omits; the cursor parameter implies pagination but the description never says so. It is adequate for identifying the tool but leaves the return contract undocumented.

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 75%, so the schema already documents query, cursor and project. The description only implicitly signals the status values through its parenthetical and adds no syntax, format or default detail beyond what the schema provides. 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 Chief has asked the human to do) and enumerates the status scope (open/done/dismissed). It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-siblings like whats_waiting or get_updates.

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?

Usage is implied by the status enumeration (default open, with done/dismissed/all as alternatives), but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this tool versus siblings such as whats_waiting or get_updates. The agent must infer the routing.

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