list_tasks

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. It explains the effect of the 'ready_only' and 'status' filters, but it does not mention other important behaviors such as whether multiple calls are safe, pagination, ordering, or any performance considerations. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds practical parameter usage. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's complexity (3 parameters, output schema exists), the description effectively covers the main operation and the two optional parameters. It does not detail the output, but that is handled by the output schema. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning the project_id parameter, but overall it provides sufficient context for an AI agent to understand the tool's use.

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 meaning to the 'ready_only' and 'status' parameters beyond the bare schema: it explains that 'ready_only' shows claimable tasks and lists acceptable status values. However, it does not describe the required 'project_id' parameter, assuming the user understands it refers to the project board. This provides good but incomplete parameter coverage given 0% schema description coverage.

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 starts with 'List tasks on the project board,' which clearly identifies the action (list) and the resource (tasks on a project board). It differentiates from sibling tools like claim_task or update_task that perform different operations, and the required project_id in the schema confirms the 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 provides a specific use case for the 'ready_only' parameter but does not explicitly state when to use list_tasks versus alternative tools such as get_task_graph or get_review_queue. The guidance is implied but lacks explicit context for tool selection.

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