list_actionable_tasks

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the filtering is server-side, only 'todo' stage cards in active lists are returned, and each result includes fields needed for decision-making (title, priority, due date, effort, labels, subtask counts, description excerpt). This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 succinct yet comprehensive: opens with purpose, then gives ordering, filtering logic, result contents, and next step. No wasted words, and the structure flows logically.

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 an output schema present, the description need not repeat return details. It covers the essential context: what tasks are returned, in what order, what data is available, and how to proceed. This is complete for a read-only discovery 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 100%, with clear descriptions for limit, search, and board_id. The tool description itself does not elaborate on these parameters, but the schema already handles them. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List tasks') and clearly defines the scope ('genuinely ready to be worked on'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it's the first call, leading to claim_task, and explicitly describes the server-side filtering criteria that make it unique.

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 clear context on when to use it ('Call this first, before any other tool') and what to do after (call claim_task). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough to be unambiguous.

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