list_agent_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'list tasks', which implies a read operation but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as return format, filtering semantics, pagination, sorting, or whether it includes all historical tasks. It adds minimal value beyond the basic operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the primary action. It is not verbose, but it is also minimal to the point of under-specification. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 annotations, no output schema, and only a terse description, the tool is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It does not clarify what kind of tasks are returned, the meaning of the required 'id', or any behavioral details. Complexity is low, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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?

The schema has 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (only workspace_id is described). The description does not explain what 'id' refers to (presumably an agent ID) or how it relates to the task listing. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the required parameter under-specified.

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 an agent has worked on, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_issues or list_autopilot_runs, and 'tasks' is somewhat vague. Overall, it is clear enough for basic selection.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is agent-specific, nor does it direct users to other tools for different scenarios. The usage context is only implied by the name and the description.

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