list_plan_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('List') and mentions metadata, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it discuss pagination, error behavior, or any side effects. This adds some context beyond the schema but is not fully 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It contains no filler or redundant content, earning its place with the purpose clause. It is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the main purpose and a general idea of the result ('tasks ... with metadata'). However, it lacks details about the exact metadata fields returned and does not explicitly guide the agent on when to select this tool over similar siblings, leaving some gaps.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameter (project_id) with a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter format, valid values, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('tasks from the PlanCreator wiki') and a purpose ('to understand available plan steps'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_next_task (single task) and list_epics (epics), making the tool's function 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 phrase 'to understand available plan steps' implies a use case (gaining an overview of plan steps), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like search_plan_tasks or get_task_details, so it lacks exclusions.

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