task_list

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms a non-destructive list operation. It adds behavioral context about tasks as coordination primitives and the unblocked filter, but does not mention potential limits like pagination.

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 concise, front-loads the purpose, and uses clear structure with a brief paragraph followed by Args. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and parameter context. It explains the coordination workflow and filtering options. Minor gaps like pagination are acceptable.

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%, and the description includes an Args section that largely reiterates the schema descriptions. It adds context for status and unblocked, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema.

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' and provides a specific use case: 'Call with status="open" to find work that needs doing.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_get or task_create.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use (e.g., with status='open') and the coordination context ('check for open tasks before creating new ones') is provided. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like task_get for individual retrieval.

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