فهرست وظایف

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned-field set and the _id/task_id convention, which is real value, but says nothing about paging behavior, result volume, or what an empty list means.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the actionable chaining tip. No filler; slightly terse rather than wasteful.

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 no output schema, listing the returned fields is the right compensating move, and the read-only profile is covered by annotations. Missing only paging/termination guidance for the offset parameter, which an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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% — scope's four enum values, offset paging, and the project_id requirement are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format or interaction detail beyond that, 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?

States the resource (tasks/وظایف) and enumerates the returned fields — ids, titles, assignees, project, board, dates, progress — which is genuinely informative given there is no output schema. The verb 'list' is only implicit in the name, and it does not contrast itself against siblings like mizito_get_task or mizito_calendar.

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 only guidance is a chaining convention: use a task's `_id` as task_id in every other task tool. That is useful, but it never says when to pick this tool over mizito_get_task or mizito_calendar, nor does it explain which scope to choose; usage is only implied via the schema enum.

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