list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists' tasks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's a simulation, preview, or actual execution check. No information about permissions, rate limits, or output format is included.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., task names, parameters, order), whether it includes conditional tasks, or how it handles errors. The context of sibling tools suggests this is part of an automation/orchestration system, but the description doesn't leverage that context.

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?

The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'playbook' contextually but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid playbook identifier, format requirements, or where playbooks are sourced from. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), specifying they are tasks 'that would be executed by a playbook'. This distinguishes it from general task listing tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_playbook' or 'check_syntax'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or contrast with sibling tools like 'run_playbook' (which executes tasks) or 'check_syntax' (which might validate playbooks).

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