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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states 'list' implying a read-only operation but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, mention pagination, ordering, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and scope. However, it could be slightly longer to include critical missing details without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers basic purpose but lacks behavioral and parameter details. It is minimally adequate but not robustly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameter 'status' and its enum values. It only says 'optionally filtered by status' without defining what each status (todo, running, etc.) means. This adds negligible value over the raw schema.

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 the verb (list), resource (RadTask tasks), and scope (user's tasks). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like complete_task and create_task, establishing its role as a read-only listing tool.

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 mentions optional status filtering but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. While the purpose is implicit, it lacks direct statements like 'Use this to view tasks; use create_task to add new ones.'

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