List problem tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are enriched with author/technician/group names, which is marginally useful. It says nothing about pagination behavior or empty-result handling, so with annotations carrying the load this is a 3.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, naming the resource and the enriched result fields. It is efficient, though arguably thin given the four parameters the tool accepts.

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), annotations cover the safety profile, and all four parameters are documented at 100% coverage. The description is complete enough for correct invocation, with the only minor gap being the absence of usage routing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents problemId, range, fields and format. The description adds no parameter syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tasks for a problem'), which cleanly separates it from the parallel glpi_list_ticket_tasks and glpi_list_change_tasks siblings by the parent object type. It also names the enriched fields returned (author, technician, group names). It does not explicitly contrast itself against siblings, keeping it just 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?

The intended use (retrieve tasks belonging to a given problem) is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative list tool. An agent can infer usage but gets no routing guidance.

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