tasks

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

The description discloses 'Relay-paginated' behavior and provides example variables showing filter structure, which adds value beyond the annotation-less schema. However, it omits other behavioral details like authentication requirements, rate limits, default ordering, or return shape. No annotations are present, so the description carries partial burden but not fully.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, then follows with pagination and example variables. The example is lengthy but useful for understanding complex filter structures, and every sentence contributes meaning. No filler content.

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 complexity (pagination, filtering) and lack of an output schema, the description covers pagination and filter examples but does not describe the response shape or ordering field options. The scope qualifier and example help, but gaps remain around error handling and full filter fields. It is adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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 description names the key GraphQL variables (after, first, taskFilter, taskOrder) and gives a concrete example of taskFilter with nested fields like acknowledged, assignees, closed, created, and notAssignees, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare type descriptions. The customer_slug parameter is not mentioned in the description, but its schema description provides context.

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' with a specific scope qualifier '(non-security / engineering items)' and mentions filtering and ordering, which conveys the tool's function. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'task' or 'discover_tasks', but the verb and resource are clear enough to establish primary purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'non-security / engineering items' implies a scope limitation but does not mention when-not-to-use or point to other task-related tools. Sibling tools such as 'discover_tasks' or 'resolve_task' exist but are not referenced.

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