list_dev_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses filter parameters, pagination (page, per_page with a cap of 20), and flags for agent and deleted tasks. While it doesn't mention sorting or result structure, the output schema exists to cover return values. Overall, the description provides reasonable behavioral insight.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement and then lists each parameter with explanations. It is somewhat lengthy but contains no redundant information. The structure is clear and easy to parse.

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 the complexity of 7 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics thoroughly. It does not mention expected response format or ordering, but the output schema likely provides that. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds essential meaning beyond the schema. It explicitly lists all enum values for status, priority, and task_type, explains the boolean filters for_agent and include_deleted, and clarifies pagination constraints. This adds significant value for correct invocation.

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 the action ('List dev-tasks') and the resource ('your kanocifer-chat board'). It is distinct from sibling tools like create, get, update, etc., providing a specific verb+resource combination.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_dev_task or get_frontier_tasks. However, the name 'list' implies retrieval of multiple items, and the detailed filters suggest it's for filtered aggregation. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided.

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