lokalise_list_tasks

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It describes returns (assignees, progress, due dates, language scope) implying a read operation, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Description is concise with four sentences covering main purpose, parameters, use cases, and return data. Slightly front-loaded but could be more structured as bullet points. Minimal waste.

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?

For a list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, required/optional params, use cases, and returned fields. Missing details on sorting, pagination behavior, or error handling, but satisfactory overall.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and the description adds usage context for parameters, there is a contradiction: description states default limit is 50, but schema specifies 100. This misalignment degrades reliability for the agent.

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 monitors ongoing translation work and deadlines, identifies the resource (tasks), and lists use cases. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_task or delete_task by focusing on listing/monitoring.

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 provides concrete usage contexts ('Use to track workload, find overdue tasks, or check assignment status') and lists required/optional parameters. However, it does not explicitly exclude scenarios where get_task or create_task would be more appropriate.

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