list_tasks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It accurately implies a read-only listing of all tasks, but provides no additional behavioral context such as ordering, pagination, or performance implications. For a zero-parameter list tool this is acceptable, though not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that expresses exactly what the tool does with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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?

This is a very simple zero-parameter tool with an output schema available. The description fully covers its externally visible behavior: it lists all tasks. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, no further contextual detail is required.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to provide additional parameter semantics; the baseline of 4 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'), identifies the resource ('tasks'), and states the scope ('all tasks in the todo list'). It is clearly distinct from the mutating sibling tools complete_task, delete_task, and add_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 description makes the use case clear: call this to view every task in the todo list. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the distinction from mutating sibling tools is straightforward and unlikely to confuse an agent.

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