Task list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds behavior the annotations don't: ordering is "oldest first" and results are exhaustive ("every match"). It doesn't discuss result limits or volume, but with an output schema present and the exhaustiveness claim stated, the gap is minor.

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 sentences: the first defines the resource, ordering, and returned fields; the second routes the agent to the right next action. Nothing is repeated and the scoping information is 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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, exhaustiveness and the follow-up workflow. Only edge details such as whether done tasks are included by default or any result-size ceiling are left implicit.

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 100%, with both owner and status fully documented including the empty-string default semantics, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 3 applies. The description hints at filtering only implicitly via "every match" and adds no syntax or enum detail beyond the schema (status enum lives in the schema text, not the parameter enum list).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List the tasks on the shared agent board") and disambiguates what a task is ("work handed between agents"), plus the return fields (id, status, owner, title). The read-only list role is clearly distinct from the write siblings referenced later (task_add / task_claim via integration_call).

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call it ("Check it before adding or claiming one") and names the alternatives for the write path (task_add / task_claim reached through integration_call). An agent knows both the trigger condition and where to go instead for mutation.

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