datto_edr_tasks_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered by structured data. The description still earns credit by disclosing the default sort order (newest first) and the underlying endpoint, which are behavioral facts an agent would otherwise have to guess; it omits rate limits and pagination mechanics, but the schema's skip/nextSkip text covers the latter.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the newest-first ordering front-loaded. The endpoint and the status tip are tacked on without padding the text.

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 read-only, fully documented eight-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it returns at a category level and how to interpret the main filter. It stops short of describing the response shape or how archived tasks differ when include_archived is set, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 and the schema already carries the heavy lifting for all eight parameters. The description contributes one genuine semantic addition — that status "Active" corresponds to running tasks — but adds nothing about type, where, order, or fields beyond what those parameter descriptions already say.

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 specific verb and resource ("List user tasks") and clarifies scope with a parenthetical listing the task kinds surfaced (scans, responses, enumerations), plus the backing endpoint GET /api/usertasks. It reads clearly as the collection counterpart to datto_edr_tasks_get and datto_edr_task_items_list, though it never names those siblings to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 one usage hint — use status "Active" for running tasks — tells the agent how to get live work, which is a real operational cue. Beyond that there is no guidance on when to prefer this over datto_edr_scans_list, datto_edr_jobs_list, or datto_edr_task_items_list, nor any stated preconditions.

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