list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully reveals pagination behavior (zero-based page, pagesize typically 10/20) and subject identifier forms, but does not state read-only safety, sorting, error behavior, or how results are ordered.

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 one purpose line plus three terse parameter lines. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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 simple paginated list with an output schema, the description covers the core calling contract. It misses the relationship to list_subjects (where valid subject identifiers come from) and any behavior around empty results or invalid subjects, so it is minimally viable rather than complete.

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%, and the description fully compensates: it explains that subject accepts a key, Russian name, or proj-GUID, that page is zero-based, and that pagesize is usually 10 or 20. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema types and defaults.

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 states a clear resource and scope: 'Список заданий по предмету' (list of tasks by subject), which is distinct from get_task (single task) and list_subjects (subjects). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose list_tasks over list_subjects, get_task, or check_answer. The only context is the subject-filtered listing itself; no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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