engain_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 ordering and pagination behavior but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only (non-destructive). It also fails to mention the default behavior for projectId (falls back to ENGAIN_PROJECT_ID env var), which is important context.

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 concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value: 'List a project's tasks (comments/posts/replies), newest first, paginated via cursor.' No unnecessary details.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the cursor mechanism, filtering options, or the structure of returned data. A more comprehensive description would include examples or field explanations.

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 low (33% - only status and projectId have descriptions). The main description does not add meaning for the undocumented parameters (cursor, numItems, createdAfter, createdBefore). It barely compensates for the schema gap, providing only a vague hint about projectId.

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 action ('List'), the resource ('a project's tasks'), and provides examples ('comments/posts/replies'). It also specifies ordering ('newest first') and pagination method ('cursor'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like engain_get_task (single task retrieval) and engain_get_tasks_bulk (bulk without pagination).

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 usage for listing tasks but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives. It lacks guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for bulk operations use engain_get_tasks_bulk). With many sibling tools, explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use would be helpful.

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