clio_list_tasks

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

The description mentions routing and scope (JWT, tenant, company), but fails to disclose core behavior such as what the tool returns, whether it supports filtering/pagination, or side effects. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 concise at three sentences, but prioritizes routing details over functional explanation. It is not well-structured for an agent; key information about the task entity is omitted.

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 tool has a single parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description lacks necessary context about what data is returned and how to use the arguments. It feels incomplete for a functional list operation.

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 only parameter 'arguments' is described as a JSON string for connector arguments, but no details about expected keys or structure are provided. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate.

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 states the tool lists tasks within Clio, but does not define what constitutes a 'task' in the Clio context. It relies on the name for clarity, and while distinct from siblings like clio_list_activities, it offers no additional specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling clio_list_* tools, but the description does not differentiate usage context or suggest alternatives.

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