List farm tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact — that undated todos are returned — but says nothing about pagination behavior despite the presence of skip/take parameters.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is arguably too terse rather than verbose, which is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness one.

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 four-parameter list tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves pagination, filtering, and farm scoping entirely unexplained. The only scope detail given is that undated todos are included, which is far short of what an agent needs.

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% for all four parameters, and the description explains none of them. It does not clarify that status accepts TODO/DONE/CANCELLED, that take is capped at 200, or how farm_id scopes the list, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 pairs the verb "List" with a specific resource ("farm follow-up work") and clarifies scope by noting undated todos are included. It does not, however, differentiate this from nearby siblings such as update_farm_task or list_workflow_templates, so the agent must rely on the name alone for disambiguation.

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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., update_farm_task, list_workflow_templates) and no stated prerequisites such as whether farm_id is needed to scope results. Usage is only implied by the verb "List".

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