list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses return fields (titles, status, estimates, time logged) but omits behavioral details like pagination, error handling, permissions, or ordering. For a read-only listing tool, it is somewhat transparent but not fully.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies return values. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and return contents. It does not explicitly distinguish from search_tasks or mention the optional status filter's effect, but the schema covers that, and the tool is simple enough that no further detail is critical.

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?

Both parameters have complete schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that the tool works for a specific project, which the project_id description already conveys.

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 'List all tasks for a specific project' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task (single task) and search_tasks (search-based) by emphasizing the all-tasks-for-a-project scope. The mention of return fields further clarifies the tool's role.

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 when to use the tool (for a known project ID) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use get_task for individual tasks' or 'use search_tasks for cross-project queries', leaving the usage context only implied.

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