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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that done tasks are hidden by default and that output is sorted by due date with a total estimate appended, but it does not cover pagination beyond the default row count or whether the total estimate respects filters.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the returned shape, followed by scope and size defaults. The closing '200 rows default' repeats the schema's limit description and could be dropped without loss.

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 carries the return-value burden well by enumerating columns, sort order, and the appended total estimate. What remains thin is guidance on choosing this tool over task_search or overdue, though nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so every parameter is already documented, and the description's mentions of include_done and the 200-row default merely restate schema fields. It adds no new meaning about how filters combine or interact with the computed total.

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?

Specific verb and resource (list tasks) with the exact output columns, sort order, and default scope made explicit. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings that also return tasks such as task_search, overdue, or board.

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?

Usage is only implied: it reads as the general-purpose listing tool, and the exclusion of done tasks implies an unfiltered default view. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer task_search or overdue over this tool, which matters given three siblings that surface task collections.

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