agtask_list_open_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It indicates a filtered, read-only listing ('currently claimable'), but says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or the shape of returned items, so the agent must guess at runtime behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler, so size is appropriate for a simple list tool. It is arguably too sparse to be maximally useful, but nothing in it is wasted.

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 a one-optional-param list tool with no output schema, the minimum is arguably met, yet the description omits what a task entry contains, how results are ordered, and whether claiming is the natural next step. Enough to call the tool, not enough to use it confidently.

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?

There is a single optional parameter (limit) and the schema already documents it fully with a default, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra meaning about limit or the resulting result-set size, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (列出) and resource (AGTask 平台上的任务) plus a scope qualifier (当前可接 / currently claimable), which implicitly separates it from get_task_history and create_task. It is clear, but it does not name any sibling explicitly for 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 phrase '当前可接' implies the intended use case: finding tasks that can be claimed (presumably before calling agtask_claim_task). However, it never states when to use this versus agtask_get_task_history or agtask_list_notifications, so the routing is left to inference.

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