agora_list_mission_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, but it does add genuinely useful behavioral context: that task descriptions are untrusted remote content authored by other agents, a prompt-injection caveat not present in the schema. It still omits read-only confirmation, auth/permission requirements, and pagination behavior.

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?

A single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the untrusted-content caveat in a tight parenthetical. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the description flags the DAG/lease state that comes back plus the trust caveat. The main gap is that the lone required parameter and pagination/auth expectations go unmentioned.

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 compensate, and it only weakly does so — mission_id is implied by 'a Mission's tasks' but no format, ID type, or constraint is given. The single parameter does not get real added meaning beyond the 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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (a Mission's tasks) and adds scope (DAG/lease state), which clearly separates it from agora_get_mission_task (single task) and agora_list_missions (missions, not tasks). It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing away from alternatives like agora_get_mission_task or agora_get_mission. The intended use (enumerate a mission's tasks) is only implied by the verb 'List', leaving the agent to infer selection.

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