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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds little beyond that – it doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with the limit parameter. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for adding only modest 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and filter. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 present and annotations covering safety, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it omits any mention of the limit parameter and leaves the status parameter's flexibility ambiguous. For a tool with only three parameters, these gaps are noticeable but not fatal.

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%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining parameters. It explains 'client' as a filter, and 'open' implies the status default, but it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter at all. Worse, stating 'List open tasks' might mislead an agent into thinking status cannot be changed, despite the schema allowing any string.

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 a verb ('List'), a resource ('CortexPlus tasks and reminders'), and a scope ('open'). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic siblings like search or memory, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. Minor issue: it says 'open' while the status parameter allows any value, so the description is slightly narrower than the actual behavior.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes search, recall, and memory, but the description doesn't mention any conditions that would favor this tool over them. An agent is left to infer usage from the name and description alone.

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