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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the output fields and the 'mine_only' filter, which implies user-scoped behavior, but it does not disclose default ordering, pagination behavior, or any authentication requirements. For a read-only list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with 'List tasks,' and each additional sentence adds value by listing filters and output fields. There is zero waste.

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?

For a filtered-list tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the available filters and output fields. It does not explicitly mention default limit or ordering, but the schema addresses the limit. The absence of an output schema is compensated for by listing the displayed fields, making it fairly 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%, with each parameter described directly in the schema. The description paraphrases the filters but adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides. 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 starts with 'List tasks,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling list_* tools by focusing on tasks and listing filter options and output fields, making it unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (filtering tasks by project, status, sprint, or assignee), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not scenarios. Given the many list_* siblings, a 4 is appropriate for clear context without exclusions.

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