paymo_list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions the default incomplete/project scope, which is already conveyed by the schema, and does not state that the operation is read-only, how pagination behaves, or the context cost of large listings. Minimal behavioral context is provided.

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 a single brief sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler. It is efficient and readable, though it omits behavioral detail that could have been included without much extra length.

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 and no annotations, the description does not explain what fields a returned task includes, how paging works, or the effect of verbose mode. The rich parameter schema helps for parameters, but the overall tool context remains thin, leaving the agent to infer important runtime behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the tool description does not need to repeat them. The phrase 'configured project' and 'incomplete tasks' aligns with project_id and include_completed defaults but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the action (List) and resource (tasks), and notes the default scope (incomplete tasks, configured project). It is specific, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like paymo_get_task or paymo_list_tasklists.

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 listing tasks and highlights the default behavior, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_task or list_tasklists, nor any exclusions. This is implied usage rather than clear directives.

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