list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral context. It does not disclose that the tool is safe (read-only), paginated (implied by limit/offset), or what the default listing includes (all tasks vs. user-specific). The output schema exists but is not described.

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 with two sentences, but it lacks a clear structure such as front-loading the primary action or key constraints. It is underinformative for the number of parameters and sibling tools.

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 complexity (3 parameters, output schema, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination behavior, or how the tool fits among task-related siblings. The output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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?

Only the matter_id parameter is mentioned in the description, leaving limit and offset unexplained despite their default values and role in pagination. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description fails to 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 clearly states that the tool lists tasks and can filter by matter_id, which differentiates it from other list tools for different resources. However, it does not specify what scope of tasks is returned when no filter is applied, leaving some ambiguity.

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 related tools like get_task, create_task, or other list operations. There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering, or alternatives.

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