list_global_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/non-destructive, so 'without changing it' is largely reinforcing. The description earns credit by disclosing the return payload shape (tree_path, count, global_tasks with index/class/instance_id) and the downstream meaning of `index`, which annotations do not cover.

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?

Front-loaded with the scoping distinction and economical overall. Minor redundancy: the return contents are stated once inline ('Returns count and global_tasks [{index, class, instance_id}]') and then restated in the 'Returns:' line.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully documents the return shape and the significance of `index` for follow-up mutators. It leaves `class` and `instance_id` semantics implicit, a small gap but not blocking for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

Only one parameter (tree_path) with 100% schema description coverage including an example path, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, only about the returned index. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list global tasks of a StateTree asset) and explicitly disambiguates scope: 'tasks that run for the whole tree, not one state'. An agent can distinguish this from list_tasks/list_states siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explains the operative context — read the task list without modifying it, and the returned `index` is the handle consumed by add_state_tree_global_task_property and remove_state_tree_global_task. That routes the agent well, but no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative sibling (e.g. list_tasks for state-level tasks) is given.

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