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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core operation and does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, or read-only nature. This is a minimal description without added behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It conveys the core action, the required scope (project), and the optional filter in a compact, front-loaded manner.

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?

The tool is low complexity, but with no output schema the return content is not defined. The description does not clarify whether a list of full task objects, summaries, or identifiers is returned, nor any ordering or pagination behavior. Adequate for a basic call, but not fully complete.

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% for both projectId and status, so the schema documents the parameters adequately. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), scoped to a project with an optional status filter. It is clear and distinct from other list_* siblings in resource type, though it doesn't explicitly call out alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of related tools like create_task, update_task, or list_projects. The intended use is implied by the name and description, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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