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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so "Reads only" is largely redundant. The description does add non-annotation behavior: results are ordered most-recently-active-first and pagination is driven by nextCursor, which genuinely helps the agent. It stops short of describing defaults or empty-result behavior.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result shape, then usage and pagination. "Reads only" is the one near-redundant clause given the annotations, but it costs little.

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, the description usefully names the fields returned per task and covers pagination, which is the main thing an agent needs. Gaps remain around the limit parameter's default/max behavior and the status filter, but the core call is fully specified.

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 75%, so the schema already documents cursor, status and workspace_id. The description reinforces the pagination contract (nextCursor -> cursor) but says nothing about limit, the status filter values, or workspace_id sourcing beyond what the schema states. 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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List a workspace's tasks") plus ordering ("most recently active first") and returned fields (status, repository, pull request). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_task, so an agent must infer that list vs. single-task retrieval is the split.

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?

"Use it to find a task or see what's running" gives implied usage, and the pagination instruction is concrete. However, it names no alternative (e.g. get_task for a specific task) and states no when-not condition, so the routing decision is left partly to inference.

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