list_farm_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds one useful behavioral detail—'including undated todos'—that explains the listing scope beyond annotations, but does not cover pagination behavior, filtering defaults, or how status interacts with the listing.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no filler. It conveys exactly enough to understand the tool's core purpose.

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 list endpoint with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain what happens when farm_id is omitted (likely uses current context), the meaning of status values, or whether the result includes tasks across all farms or only the current one. An agent may need to probe the API to understand the default behavior.

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 properties (skip, take, status, farm_id) are well-defined by names, types, and enums, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about these parameters. Since description coverage is low and there are 4 params, the description fails to compensate, leaving semantics like pagination and filtering to inference.

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 resource (farm follow-up work/farm tasks), and notably includes 'including undated todos,' which clarifies the scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_groups, list_rations, and list_record.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the optional farm_id fallback to current context, filter semantics, or cases where one might prefer list_records over this tool. Usage is only implied by the name and description.

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