minimax_list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool lists tasks and allows optional timestamp filtering, but does not disclose whether it returns all tasks in a paginated manner, the default ordering (e.g., chronological vs reverse chronological), or any rate-limiting or authentication requirements. Given the lack of annotations, a more detailed behavioral description is needed.

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 clear and to the point. It effectively communicates the tool's purpose and the main feature (filtering by timestamp) without unnecessary detail. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has a simple list operation with well-defined parameters and an output schema, so the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explicitly mention pagination behavior (though limit/offset are implied), nor does it clarify the ordering or how to interpret the results in relation to the output schema. The presence of an output schema and 100% parameter coverage mitigate the need for extensive description, but a bit more detail on expected behavior would improve completeness.

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 all four parameters are described in the schema. The description adds the mention of timestamp filtering but does not provide additional context beyond the schema definitions. Since the schema already covers the parameters, the description's contribution is minimal, earning a baseline 3.

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 video generation tasks and indicates optional filtering by timestamp. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like minimax_list_models (which lists models) and minimax_get_task (which likely retrieves a single task). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from minimax_get_tasks_batch or mention the output format.

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 this is for listing tasks rather than retrieving a specific one, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs minimax_get_tasks_batch or minimax_get_task. There's no guidance on when filtering is appropriate or when to use each sibling tool. The context signals show sibling tools with similar purposes (get_tasks_batch), so more explicit usage guidance would be beneficial.

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