task_list

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining the role of tasks in multi-agent work. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond safety flags.

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 with a front-loaded main action, followed by essential context and an args section in a clean format. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema (return values not needed here), the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral context. It explains why listing tasks is important in workflow, making it complete.

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%, but the description enhances parameter semantics by giving a usage example (status='open') and explaining the coordination context. It adds meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like task_get (single task) and task_create by focusing on listing and suggesting status='open' to find work, which differentiates its use case.

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 description advises to 'Check for open tasks before creating new ones', providing a clear usage context. It explains tasks as coordination primitives but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, which slightly reduces completeness.

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