clio_list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for description is lower. The description adds a meaningful constraint: routing only through the exact project/account governed connector authority. It also clarifies that the effect parameter must be 'read' and that Spring verifies it. However, it does not disclose pagination, result formats, or any operational quirks beyond 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?

The description is well-organized: a compact operation identifier, a routing constraint, then a structured parameter list. Each line serves a purpose and there is minimal verbosity. The arg list is slightly redundant with the schema but remains scannable and useful given the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

With 7 parameters and an existing output schema, the description is adequate for basic parameter filling, but it lacks selection guidance among dozens of sibling tools and never states the expected return shape. The mention of approval_ref 'when resuming a write' is confusing in a read-only tool and could mislead an agent about when to supply that field. Overall, it's workable but incomplete for a tool with this much sibling competition.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It compensates with a one-line explanation for each argument (e.g., project_id as Authenticated Project UUID, connector_account_ref as project-bound alias). Some definitions are still vague ('exact project correlation reference'), and the relationship between idempotency_key and a read operation is unclear, but overall it adds meaning beyond bare titles.

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 identifies the tool as a Clio connector operation named `list_tasks`, but it never explicitly states that the operation lists or retrieves Clio tasks. Purpose is heavily carried by the name itself; the added routing language ('governed connector authority') does not clarify what the tool actually returns. It's not a full tautology because it scopes to Clio, but it lacks a direct verb+resource statement.

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 the many sibling list operations (e.g., list_crm_tasks, xero_list_tasks, smokeball_list_tasks). The only contextual note is about routing through a governed connector authority, which is an invocation constraint, not a usage criterion. There are no exclusions or alternative routing suggestions.

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