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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two behavioral facts that matter — result ordering (newest first) and the pagination continuation mechanism. It omits other relevant behavior: that it is a read-only enumeration, the default/maximum page size, and whether filtered results preserve the same ordering.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and ordering, followed by the pagination note. Nothing is wasted and the most important information comes first.

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?

A five-parameter, zero-required filter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more: the description says nothing about what filters exist, the default page size, or what a returned page looks like. Combined with the cursor/next_cursor naming discrepancy, an agent would have to read the schema carefully to call this correctly.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate, but it does not: it never explains lane, queue, status, or limit. Worse, it instructs the caller to 'Pass next_cursor', while the actual parameter is named 'cursor' — a naming mismatch that could send an agent looking for a nonexistent field and does nothing to clarify the lane/queue mutual-exclusion noted only in the 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List this project's tasks') and adds ordering semantics ('newest first'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from other list_* siblings (list_crons, list_hooks, list_secrets), but those target different resources, so the risk of confusion is low.

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: an agent can infer this is the way to enumerate tasks, and the sentence about continuing with a cursor gives a clear paging workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_task for a single task, and no mention of the available filters (queue, lane, status) that would guide a caller to narrow results.

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