list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe any behavioral traits - no mention of whether it's read-only, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the task list returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides only basic purpose without behavioral context, this is incomplete. For a list operation that presumably returns task data, the description should at minimum indicate it's a read operation and mention basic return characteristics since there's no output schema to document this.

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 schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'projectId' has a clear description in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, maintaining the minimum viable level.

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 the verb ('取得' - get/retrieve) and resource ('プロジェクトのカンバンボードのタスク一覧' - project kanban board task list), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'update_task' beyond the inherent difference in operation type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or relationships to sibling tools like 'create_task' or 'update_task'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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