freeagent_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 clear. The description adds the domain fact that time is always logged against a task, but does not disclose tool-specific behaviors such as default view, pagination handling, or response structure. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by actionable usage guidance. There is zero redundancy or irrelevant detail, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with fully described parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key use case. It does not mention return format or fields, but this is partially mitigated by the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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%: all three parameters (view, limit, project) have descriptive text and constraints already. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List project tasks in FreeAgent.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like freeagent_list_projects and freeagent_list_timeslips by noting that tasks are tied to time logging, which makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Time is always logged against a task, so use this to find the task URL before creating a timeslip.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and connects it to the downstream action of creating a timeslip, effectively naming the alternative or next step.

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