task_list_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the compact projection behavior prominently with hints, explicitly warns that view='compact' is a trimmed view and NOT missing fields, and explains which fields are kept. This is rich, preemptive clarification about the most likely source of agent confusion.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then uses clear sectioned paragraphs for scoping behavior and the compact projection caveat. Every sentence earns its place — no filler, no restating of schema fields. It's appropriately detailed for a tool with 9 parameters and a compact-vs-full projection distinction.

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 complexity (9 params, dual scoping modes, compact/full projections, folded-in sibling tool) and that an output schema exists, the description is complete. It covers scope selection, projection semantics, the consolidation history, and points to alternatives for full task detail, leaving no material ambiguity for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the team_id semantics (narrow vs empty = all teams) and the project_id default behavior (auto-uses active project; ignored when team_id given), beyond what the schema states. However, most parameter details (limit, offset, status enums, priority options) are fully covered by the schema already.

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 it retrieves 'the task wall' with specific verbs and clarifies project-scoped vs team-scoped behavior. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it's the 'single task-wall entry point' and explicitly mentions that taskwall_view was folded into it, and points to task_status/task_memo_read as the full-detail alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: pass team_id to narrow to one team, leave empty for all teams plus project-level tasks. It also explicitly names alternatives (task_status for full single-task details, task_memo_read for memo) telling the agent when NOT to use this tool and what to use instead.

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