tasks_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it's a list operation with optional filtering, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (limit/after parameters suggest it), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'all tasks' means in context (e.g., archived status). For a list tool with 5 parameters, this lacks critical behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words, though it could be more informative. Structure is straightforward but lacks depth for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools like tasks_search, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, filtering details, or how to handle pagination. For a list tool in a rich CRM context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't explain what parameters are available or their purposes (limit, after, properties, associations, archived). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter meanings or usage examples.

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 'List all tasks with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), and indicates scope ('all') with optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like tasks_get (single task) and tasks_search (search with criteria), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from tasks_list's exact sibling context beyond implied 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tasks_search or tasks_get. The description mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify what filtering is available or when to prefer this over tasks_search. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for usage are provided.

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