tasks_list

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates the returned fields per kind, explains that media come back as short references (*_ref / *_refs like img:12) that are only valid for the lifetime of this MCP server run, and notes that image_view resolves them. It never explicitly states that this is a side-effect-free read operation, nor does it mention result totals or what happens at the end of the list — minor but real gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 structure is front-loaded and purposeful: purpose and pagination first, then a per-kind breakdown, then the follow-up tool chain, then reference-handling semantics. All four paragraphs earn their place, though the field enumeration per kind is dense enough that an agent must parse a long run-on clause rather than scan a list.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values — and it does, per kind, plus the ref-resolution rule and the follow-up tool chain. For a five-parameter, two-variant list tool this is nearly complete; only end-of-list/total-count behavior and the instance_id vs project_path resolution are left unaddressed in prose.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, and most description text (offset default 0, next_offset usage, count default 20) merely restates that. The one genuine addition is expanding what kind=effect versus kind=growth actually returns, which helps the agent pick a value, but instance_id/project_path — including the fallback when only one project window is open — are left entirely to the schema. This is the correct baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource+scope: paginated listing of activity-center tasks via offset/count. It immediately splits the result set by the `kind` enum, stating what each variant contains (effect: title/status/received flag/remaining days/revenue/schedule/claim counts; growth: reward amount and reference project), so an agent can distinguish it from task_detail, task_receive, task_bind and growth_route without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a clear downstream routing chain — obtain task_id here, then use task_detail for details, task_receive to claim, task_bind to bind (only when bindable=true) — and states that kind=effect is the default while kind=growth targets growth tasks. What it does not do is say when to skip this tool entirely (e.g., if you already have a task_id, or when growth_route already supplies level/progress), so exclusions are implied rather than explicit.

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