list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation by saying 'Find tasks' and 'see what work exists,' but it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, nor does it mention any permissions, rate limits, or response format. It adds some context with 'across sessions' but leaves out details like whether archived tasks are excluded by default (though the schema covers that).

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core function and filters; the second gives the intended use case. There is no redundant information, and the most important information is front-loaded. It earns its place completely.

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 simple listing tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the primary filters and the use case. It could additionally mention that task_id lookup is supported, but the schema clarifies that. The description differentiates from sibling tools well and stands alone as understandable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by rephrasing 'status' and 'assignee' filters, but it does not mention task_id or include_archived, which are already documented in the schema. The schema descriptions are clear and self-sufficient, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Find tasks by status (planned/active/done) or assignee.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_task, update_task, and get_context by focusing on listing/filtering tasks. The additional purpose statement ('Use to see what work exists and check progress across sessions') further clarifies its role.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: 'Use to see what work exists and check progress across sessions.' This implies a read-only, overview-oriented usage. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is strong enough to guide an agent, especially given the sibling tools are mostly mutations or context queries.

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