list_tasks

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

Beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, the description discloses non-obvious behaviors: default hiding of finished tasks, newest-first ordering, and 200-character note truncation with an escalation path. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact: operation/order, status filtering, and truncation behavior with a pointer to get_task. No filler and the most important usage caveats come first.

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?

Covers the main caveats an agent needs: ordering, default status filtering, and truncation. There is no output schema, but the return shape is inferable; pagination is not described but is covered by the limit parameter in the schema.

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 schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds behavioral context around status and limit ('newest first') but does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tasks in a list'), adds an ordering guarantee ('newest first'), and explicitly points to get_task for full task details, distinguishing it from the single-task sibling.

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?

Gives concrete guidance to use get_task when notes are truncated, and clarifies that completed tasks are hidden unless status is completed/all. It does not explicitly mention list_lists, but the verb/resource makes the distinction clear enough.

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