Comfy open tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: newest-first ordering, verbatim serving with the engine's now_s, cursor-based paging, and the live:false / task_board_closed outcome for a non-open board.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns before covering pagination and the closed-board edge case. Minor jargon ('the engine's now_s') costs a little, but no sentence is wasted.

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 burden of describing return values and does so field by field, and it covers paging and the closed-board failure mode. Filter combination semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is the only real gap for a 4-parameter listing tool.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's note that '`after` is the `cursor` of the last page' largely restates the schema and adds no meaning for kind, category, or min_budget_og.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Open tasks on the Comfy task board, newest first') and enumerates the returned fields, which makes it clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling comfy_task. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent still infers the plural/singular split.

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?

Gives concrete guidance for pagination ('`after` is the `cursor` of the last page') and for the failure case (a closed board yields a live:false outcome such as task_board_closed). It never says when to prefer this over comfy_task or how the kind/category/budget filters combine, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than stated.

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