list_tasks

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 default subagent filter and hints at delegation via 'sessions_list', but it does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, how pagination works, or any side effects. For a list tool this is minimal but not misleading.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is genuinely concise with no filler, though the opaque 'via sessions_list' phrase could be clearer.

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 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves the agent without enough context to correctly set limit/cursor or understand the meaning of 'via sessions_list'. The default filter detail is helpful but insufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the subagentOnly parameter via 'filtered to subagent', but says nothing about limit or cursor. An agent has no guidance on what these parameters control or how to use them.

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 clear action and resource: 'List tasks'. The mention of 'via sessions_list' introduces some ambiguity about the implementation, but the core purpose is unmistakable. Compared to siblings start_task and get_task_status, the listing operation is distinct, though not explicitly contrasted.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The only context is 'filtered to subagent by default', which is a behavioral detail, not a usage condition. An agent must infer that listing is the appropriate operation for retrieving tasks.

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