accelo_list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses the parent-relationship resolution chain, the filter set, the max page size of 100, and 0-indexed paging. It stops short of describing the return shape or rate-limit/auth behavior, which would matter for an unannotated list tool.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then the hierarchy guidance, then the Args list — a logical order. The hierarchy bullets add real value but are slightly verbose relative to a simple list call.

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 5-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers parameters well and explains how tasks relate to jobs/milestones/issues. It omits return-value shape and any pagination/rate-limit caveats beyond the limit cap, which is the main remaining gap.

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, and it largely does: it enumerates the filter keys (id, assignee, against_type, date_*_before/after, order_by_*, etc.), shows a fields example ('description,assignee(),manager()'), defines search scope (description, title), notes page is 0-indexed, and caps limit at 100. It stops short of explaining each filter key's semantics, but the coverage is well above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tasks from Accelo') and distinguishes itself from siblings like accelo_get_task and accelo_count_tasks by being the enumeration operation. The added hierarchy explanation ('Tasks are against a job, milestone, or issue') further pins down what kind of records this returns.

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?

Gives concrete context on when the against_type/against_id filters matter and explicitly recommends 'child_of_job' to gather all tasks under a job, including via milestones. It does not, however, explicitly state exclusions or point to count_tasks/get_task as alternatives, leaving some inference.

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