maestro_list_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. It discloses ownership scope and recency, and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe ordering, pagination, or result bounding beyond the schema. This is acceptable but minimal for a read-only list.

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 with no wasted words. The key facts—action, resource, ownership, and recency—are front-loaded and immediately useful.

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 simple list tool with a full output schema and complete parameter documentation, the one-line description is largely sufficient. It does not include explicit usage guidance or alternatives, but the purpose and sibling names cover the main decision an agent needs to make.

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%: all three parameters (`limit`, `created_at_max`, `created_at_min`) already have meaningful descriptions in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('Maestro tasks') and scopes it to tasks owned by the authenticated user. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools `maestro_create_video` and `maestro_get_task`.

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 basic use case is implied by the purpose—use this to list recent tasks—but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over `maestro_get_task` or when not to use it. The agent must infer the boundary from sibling names and the verb.

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