gateway.tasks_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important semantic distinction about task IDs being opaque downstream identifiers, which is useful context. However, it does not mention read-only behavior, return structure, or pagination; the schema covers the cursor parameter, but the description adds only this one behavioral nuance.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The additional clarification about opaque identifiers is concise and earns its place without wasted words.

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 list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function and adds a key clarification about ID semantics. The cursor parameter's schema description already provides pagination context, making the description largely complete. A brief mention of the return format would be helpful but is not essential for correct invocation.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (cursor and server_name) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('brokered downstream MCP tasks'). The added clarification that task IDs are opaque downstream identifiers, not PMCP request IDs, further distinguishes this tool from related request-id tools.

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 implies usage for downstream tasks rather than PMCP request IDs, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like gateway.list_pending or gateway.tasks_get. No exclusions or alternative names are provided.

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