bitrix_list_tasks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, which implies a read, but it doesn't reveal default exclusions (completed tasks/done stage), sorting, or response shape, and it may overstate the need to specify project when the schema marks it optional.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states what the tool does, then gives the two most important usage hints. There is no wasted wording or redundant restating of the schema.

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 7 parameters are fully documented in the schema and this is a simple read/list operation, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description doesn't cover default behavior (e.g., completed tasks excluded) or optionality of project, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by telling the agent to use project name and stages rather than IDs, but it doesn't explain parameters like limit, order, search, or the include flags, which are already well-covered by 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 explicitly states the tool lists Bitrix24 tasks, and adds the key scoping dimensions (project name and kanban stages). It distinguishes itself from get/update tools by noting 'ID не нужны', but doesn't name a sibling directly, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

It provides parameter-level guidance ('Указывайте project и stages') but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the many list vs. detail vs. action siblings. The only differentiation hint is 'ID не нужны', which is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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