tasks_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination parameters and status filtering, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'List of tasks' entails structurally. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the formatting with quotes and indentation could be cleaner. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 that there's an output schema (which should cover return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity with 3 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, making it incomplete for optimal agent operation.

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 description adds parameter semantics by explaining 'page' as 'Page number', 'per_page' as 'Results per page', and 'status' with allowed values 'pending, completed'. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates somewhat, but it doesn't fully detail parameter constraints or interactions beyond basic definitions.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'tasks in your Apollo account', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'deals_list' or 'workflows_list' beyond specifying it's for tasks, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'task_create' or other list tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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