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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about which task types are included, but it does not disclose behaviors like status filtering, pagination, ordering, or whether all users' tasks are returned. With annotations covering safety, a mid score is appropriate.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the examples are informative without being verbose. It earns its place by clarifying what counts as a background task. No redundant content.

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 no output schema and two undocumented parameters, the description does not explain what the returned task objects look like, how status filtering works, or how limit behaves. It is adequate for a trivial read-only list, but the missing parameter and return-value context leaves gaps for an agent.

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 0% and the description is silent about the 'limit' and 'status' parameters. Since there is no parameter documentation in the schema either, the agent receives no explanation of acceptable status values or how limit affects results. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 clearly states the verb 'Lists' and the resource 'background tasks', and gives concrete examples (generations, uploads, scans, exports). It is distinct enough from siblings like get_task or cancel_task, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_generations or list_assets.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_generations or list_assets. It simply states what it lists, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.

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