meshy_list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'up to 100' bound and the recovery use case, which is helpful context. It does not describe pagination or sorting, but for a read-only list tool with annotations, this is acceptable.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the operation and result. Every phrase adds meaning: the list cap, the purpose, and the read-only guarantee. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description gives the core purpose and safety profile, and an output schema exists. However, it leaves the required `kind` parameter unexplained and does not clarify how `limit` behaves beyond a cap. For a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, this is minimally complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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 compensate. It only loosely hints at the limit parameter with 'up to 100' and says nothing about the required `kind` parameter or its enum values. An agent gets no guidance on what the two kinds mean or how they filter results.

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 names the operation ('List'), the resource ('existing Meshy tasks'), a specific bound ('up to 100'), and a purpose ('for inspection or uncertain-submission recovery'). It also explicitly says 'read only', which distinguishes it from mutation or recovery siblings at a glance.

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 a clear use context: inspecting tasks or recovering uncertain submissions. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools such as meshy_workflow_status or meshy_recover_submission, nor does it say when not to use this tool. Context is present but exclusions are missing.

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