tasks_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It fails to mention pagination (page, perPage), sorting, filtering, or search capabilities, all of which are evident only in the schema. The phrase 'list all tasks' suggests potentially unbounded results without noting pagination, which could mislead an agent.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. However, it is overly terse and omits important details like pagination and filtering, which are critical for agent usage. It earns its place in brevity but loses marks for incompleteness.

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 has 7 parameters with no output schema and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain pagination, sorting, or filtering behavior, nor does it describe the expected return format. The agent would need to rely entirely on the schema for usage, which is a gap for an effective 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%; each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'optionally filtered by project', so it does not improve parameter understanding. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool lists tasks with optional project filtering. The verb 'List' and resource 'tasks' are unambiguous, and it distinguishes from other list tools (e.g., projects_list) by naming the resource. However, it does not specify the scope (e.g., across all workspaces or user-specific), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 implies when to use the optional projectId parameter but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tasks_get for a single task. No exclusions or context for siblings are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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