list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and adds useful context about the kind of status information returned. It does not discuss edge cases like what happens when no tasks exist, but for a simple list tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two short sentences convey the purpose and the distinguishing behavioral detail without wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the added sentence provides meaningful specificity.

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 there are no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent can expect: task identity, timing fields, and running status. This is enough to invoke and interpret the result for a simple list operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing to document about parameters, and the schema confirms none are needed.

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 names a specific verb ('list') and resource ('scheduled tasks') and enumerates what is included: interval, last execution, and next run. It further clarifies that it reports whether RSS sync, refresh, and housekeeping are actually running, which distinguishes it from the many other read tools in the sibling list.

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 makes the use case clear: it is for checking scheduled tasks and their execution status, especially whether specific maintenance activities are actually running. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select this tool over unrelated list tools.

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