List Tasks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds useful context: returns minimal fields for efficiency, and that session_init provides active tasks. No contradictions.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each sentence adds value. First sentence states purpose, second contrasts with sibling, third gives usage constraint. 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?

No output schema, but description specifies return fields. Lacks explanation of pagination parameters (limit, offset) and include_subtasks. For a list tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, it is nearly complete but missing some param details.

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 explain parameters. It only mentions filtering by workflow and/or status, ignoring include_subtasks, limit, and offset. This is insufficient for an agent to understand all parameters.

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 'List tasks filtered by workflow and/or status' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling cph_task_get by noting this returns only ID and title for efficiency, while cph_task_get provides full details.

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 says 'Call this only when explicitly asked' and notes that session_init already provides active tasks, so this tool is redundant unless specifically requested. Also names alternative for full details.

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