task_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. 'Список задач' doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what format the output takes, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits). For a tool with parameters and no annotations, this leaves the agent completely in the dark about behavioral traits.

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?

While the description is extremely concise (two words), this is under-specification rather than effective brevity. It fails to convey essential information that would help an agent use the tool correctly. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal content doesn't provide value beyond the tool name.

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 has parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of task objects), how results are structured, or any prerequisites for use. With no annotations to fill gaps, this leaves significant uncertainty about the tool's operation and output.

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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('project' filter and 'status' with enum). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description neither compensates for gaps nor adds meaningful context about parameter usage.

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 'Список задач' (List of tasks) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'task_list' in Russian. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'retrieve tasks' or 'filter tasks') or what resource it operates on. While it indicates this is about tasks, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'task_create' beyond the obvious naming difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to use 'task_list' instead of other task-related tools like 'task_create', or how it relates to non-task siblings like 'file_read' or 'rag_search'. The user must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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