list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the return order ('newest first'), lists the returned fields (id, status, description, result, timestamps), and implies this is a read-only operation for reviewing past requests. It doesn't mention rate limits or permissions, but covers core behavior adequately.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first explains when to use, the second details the return format and order. Every phrase adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with usage context followed by behavioral details.

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 0-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides complete usage guidance, behavioral transparency about ordering and fields returned, and clear purpose. It could mention if there are limits on returned tasks or pagination, but covers the essential context well given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on usage and output. No parameter-related information is needed or missing.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('list', 'returns') and resources ('tasks you have submitted'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieving all tasks rather than checking a specific task's status (check_task_status) or requesting human intervention (need_human).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when you have lost track of a task_id or want to review your past human task requests.' This provides clear context and distinguishes from alternatives like check_task_status for specific tasks. No misleading guidance is present.

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