list_tasks

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only discloses the updated_after filter behavior but omits important details like pagination, default ordering, rate limits, or whether the list includes all tasks or only those accessible to the user.

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 very concise at two sentences, with the key parameter information front-loaded. No redundant language, but the structure could be improved with more explicit separation of usage notes.

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's simplicity (2 params, output schema present), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It fails to mention pagination, empty results, or error conditions, which are important for a '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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains updated_after as an ISO 8601 datetime filter, adding crucial semantics. However, page_size is left unexplained, and no information is given about default behavior or acceptable ranges.

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 clearly states 'List tasks' as the primary action, and adds filtering capability with 'updated_after'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling list tools (e.g., list_cases, list_clients) which share the same verb-noun pattern.

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 vs. alternatives like search or filter-based tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context for invocation.

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