List tasks

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the API never stores a time of day for due dates, tasks completed in Google's UI are flagged hidden, there are no push notifications, and due bounds don't match tasks without a due date. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and output fields, and every sentence carries useful information. However, it is quite dense and could benefit from structured bullets; it is appropriately sized for the complexity but not maximally concise.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates all returned fields and covers pagination, sync patterns, filter semantics, and API quirks. For a 12-parameter list/filter/sync tool, this is remarkably 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds important meaning beyond the schema: the interplay of show_completed and show_hidden for reliable completion sync, the opaque nature of position and the move_task constraint, and that tasks lacking a due date never match due bounds.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a clear resource ('tasks in one list'), and enumerates the returned fields (id, title, notes, status, due, completed timestamp, etc.). It is easy to distinguish from siblings like get_task (single task) and list_tasklists (task lists).

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 gives strong context for when to use filters and pagination: incremental sync with updated_min and show_deleted/show_hidden, page_token for pagination, and the meaning of due_min/due_max vs completed_min/completed_max. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so when-to-use vs alternatives is not fully explicit.

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