recent_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' with no mention of ordering, pagination, what 'recent' means, authentication, or whether it is read-only. This is minimal behavioral context; the agent has to infer the tool's behavior from the name and schema.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('List') and resource ('recent asynchronous background tasks'). It contains no filler words and all clauses add useful information about scope and filters. This is appropriate conciseness.

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 no annotations, the description should explain return values and behavioral details. It only states 'list tasks' without describing the returned structure, ordering, or what fields are included. The tool has four parameters but the description omits user semantics and any filtering behavior details, leaving significant gaps.

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 description adds meaning for three of four parameters: 'node' via 'globally or for a specific node', 'limit' and 'status_filter' via 'optional status and limit filters'. However, the 'user' parameter is not mentioned, leaving it unexplained. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 tool lists recent asynchronous background tasks, with explicit scope ('globally or for a specific node') and optional filters. It is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_status, which focuses on individual task status. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast usage.

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 implies usage ('list recent tasks') and mentions scope/filters, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not compare with alternatives like task_status or mention prerequisites. The use case is clear but not directly stated as the preferred tool for a given situation.

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