List tasks in a queue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains paging via `after`, default and max limits, and that the response includes per-state counts. This gives a good sense of the operation's behavior, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only or discuss edge cases.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function and enumerates parameters, the second clarifies the paging cursor and return value. No fluff or repetition.

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 moderate-complexity tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, optional filters, paging, default limits, and return shape (tasks plus counts). This is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only 25% (only `after` has a brief description). The description compensates by explaining the `state` filter values, the paging mechanism for `after`, and the default/max for `limit`, adding meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List/inspect tasks in a queue' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_queues (lists queues) and get_task (retrieves a single task). It also enumerates the optional filters, which further clarifies scope.

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 inspecting tasks in a queue and provides context on how to page through results with the `after` cursor. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it.

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