clokio_list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: pagination mechanisms (page vs cursor), timezone handling for date filters, and the fact that each task carries a task_url. This gives the agent a decent sense of what to expect when invoking the tool.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('List tasks'), immediately lists filters, then covers pagination and return attributes. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 an 11-parameter optional-filter list tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it names all filter dimensions, gives formats and semantics for non-obvious ones, and explains pagination. It does not mention whether filters combine with AND/OR, default page size, or full response shape beyond task_url, but those gaps are not critical given annotations cover safety and the tool is a straightforward read-only list.

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 only 45%, with descriptions on five of eleven parameters. The description compensates well by clarifying key semantics: status is a slug, assignee is an employee_code, open means 'only open tasks', and date filters use YYYY-MM-DD in org timezone. It also explains page vs cursor pagination. Some parameters (search, label, priority, project_id) are only named, but the description significantly adds meaning over the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List tasks') and enumerates the supported filters, making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative (e.g., clokio_get_task for a single task), but the plural 'tasks' and filter list clearly differentiate it from singular get/update/delete tasks tools.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply lists filters and pagination mechanics, leaving the agent to infer that this is the right choice for listing multiple tasks. There is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tool to prefer for specific needs (e.g., a single task, comments, or activity).

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