list_tasks

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

Annotations are present but notable: readOnlyHint=false on what reads like a pure list operation, which the description never addresses. The description does add useful behavioral context the schema lacks — ranking order, that done/dropped are only counted rather than listed, and that rows are previews — but it says nothing about auth needs or what 'openWorld' access implies.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and outcome, then semicolon-delimited parameter hints, with no filler sentences. The telegraphic style is dense and slightly cryptic, but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description should do more: pagination semantics (cursor vs limit interplay), the meaning of 'full', and the odd readOnlyHint=false are all unexplained. It covers the essentials for basic invocation but is not complete for a 6-parameter listing tool.

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 carry the burden, and it partially does: it explains status values ('done', 'all' or any), that task_id returns one task in full, and that cursor is the next page. However, 'full' and 'limit' are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving 2 of 6 parameters opaque.

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?

It states a specific verb+resource (lists open tasks) and even specifies the ordering ('most relevant first: yours, suggested, claimable') and the row shape ('short row each with a details preview'). This is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings like claim_task, complete_task, or create_task, though it never names an alternative tool.

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?

Usage is only implied through the parameter fragments ('status "done", "all" or any', 'task_id: one in full'), which tell the agent how to narrow results but not when this tool is preferred over get_context or list_peers. There are no when-not-to-use conditions or scenario framing.

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