list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful behavioral facts outside the annotations: results are limited to 'recent' tasks and to this account's scope. It omits ordering, whether results are capped by a time window, and any rate/auth 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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted clauses, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise: no verb, no statement of what is returned, and no front-loaded guidance. Brevity here reflects missing content more than discipline.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional param, no output schema), so a short description could suffice, but this one leaves out what a 'task' record contains, how results are ordered, and how the 'recent' window interacts with the limit parameter. For a list tool that an agent must choose over get_task, that is a real gap.

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?

There is one optional parameter (limit) with 0% schema description coverage; the schema only supplies default 20 and bounds 1-50. The description never mentions the limit, its default, or what units/counts it controls, so an agent gets no added meaning beyond the bare numeric constraints.

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 phrase 'Recent supported video tasks for this account' names the resource (video tasks) and scoping (recent, this account), which goes slightly beyond the name list_tasks. But it is a noun fragment with no verb, and it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_task or explains what 'supported' means. An agent can guess the purpose but cannot confirm it from the text alone.

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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says to call this to enumerate tasks vs. get_task to fetch a single task by id, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only hint is the word 'recent', which implies a recency window but does not define it.

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