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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that results are paginated (分页返回), which is useful, but says nothing about permission requirements, error behavior, or the nature of the summary payload beyond what the schema and output schema already provide.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then states the tool's purpose in the workflow. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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, the return values need not be described, and both parameters are fully covered by the schema. The one remaining gap is that it does not explain the relationship to the other sibling tools (list_actions, execute_task), but for a simple two-parameter listing tool it is close to 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% and both parameters (limit, cursor) are documented in the schema, including that cursor comes from nextCursor. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource (分页返回 Metadata 任务分组摘要) and relates itself to the sibling tool list_tasks, so an agent can distinguish it from list_tasks/list_actions without opening the schema. It stops short of fully positioning itself against all siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 explicitly states the role: use it to pick the group argument for list_tasks, which is genuine when-to-use guidance tied to a named alternative. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite statement, so it falls just below the top tier.

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