task_pitches

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 implies a read operation via 'List', but does not disclose any additional behaviors such as error conditions (e.g., when task is not in pitch mode) or return format. It is minimally sufficient but lacks deeper 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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no unnecessary elaboration.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does, the condition for use (pitch-mode tasks), and implies read-only behavior. It could mention the return value type, but this is not critical for a straightforward list 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 schema already provides a complete description of the single parameter (task_id as a 0x-prefixed 32-byte string). The tool description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function: listing pitches for a pitch-mode task. The verb 'List' is specific, the resource 'pitches' is distinct from sibling tools like task_get or task_submissions, and the qualifier 'pitch-mode Taskmarket task' distinguishes its scope.

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 implicitly provides usage context by specifying 'for a pitch-mode Taskmarket task', indicating when this tool applies. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately among siblings that handle different resource types.

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