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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses that pagination is keyset-based, what defaults apply (status todo,doing; order created), that finished ordering only applies to done/cancelled tasks, and how principals are represented on every task. These are meaningful behavioral details the annotations do not cover.

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 definition is dense but front-loads the core purpose and then organizes filter semantics. The long semicolon-heavy sentences make it harder to scan, but there is little wasted content for a 10-parameter listing tool.

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 an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call the tool correctly: pagination model, filters, defaults, and the task_get alternative. Minor gaps remain because `kind` is not explained and `since` is omitted from the description, though `since` is documented in 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 90%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters thoroughly. The description largely repeats the schema's parameter semantics rather than adding new meaning beyond it, and one parameter (kind) remains unexplained in both places.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List one workspace's task summaries with keyset pagination'. It clearly distinguishes this summary-list tool from task_get, which handles full body, payload, drafts, and results.

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 explains the main selection contexts: workspaceId for one workspace, parentId alone for a task's children, status/reviewer for reviews, and assignee=me for personal tasks. It also explicitly routes agents to task_get when they need full task details.

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