list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior like whether the operation is read-only, if results are paginated, or if there are any side effects. It only states 'list', which implies a read, but no details on output format or limitations.

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 very short (7 words) which is concise, but it is overly minimal, omitting crucial context. While every sentence earns its place, the brevity compromises completeness.

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 no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., list of task objects, fields, pagination). It does not mention return structure or ordering, making it incomplete for an agent to interpret results.

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 already describes the 'status' parameter as an optional filter with enum values. The description merely restates this without adding new meaning or usage details, failing to compensate for the minimal schema coverage (though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no value).

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 states the tool lists tasks with optional status filtering, but it does not specify the scope (e.g., all tasks in the system vs. within a workflow). This ambiguity makes it less clear among sibling tools like get_subtasks or get_next_tasks.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_subtasks' or 'get_next_tasks'. The description lacks any context or comparison, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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