list_tasks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that listing is safe. It adds scope ('every task in the store') and a fallback qualifier, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, empty-store behavior, or any side effects; with annotations present this is acceptable 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 a single compact sentence with the main action front-loaded. The parenthetical is somewhat cryptic, which prevents a perfect score, but there is no filler or redundant schema repetition.

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 zero-parameter, read-only list operation the description is mostly sufficient, but it omits any hint about what the returned data looks like and does not clarify the 'fallback' scenario. Since there is no output schema, a bit more return-value or usage context would make it complete.

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 and the schema is therefore fully self-describing. No parameter explanations are required, so the baseline of 4 applies.

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 a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource scope ('every task in the store'), which distinguishes it from single-task tools like get_task. The parenthetical 'Tasks extension fallback' adds context but is vague and does not clearly differentiate from siblings such as list_calls.

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 explicit guidance on when to use list_tasks versus alternatives. The word 'fallback' hints at a particular context, but the description never names sibling tools or states conditions that would make this the correct choice, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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