list_planner_tasks

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the empty-plan default (KAIROS_DEFAULT_PLAN / the only plan), the '*' wildcard behavior, the interaction that bucket is ignored when plan='*', and the include_completed default of open-only. It does not cover auth requirements or pagination, but for a read-style list tool the disclosed defaults and edge cases are substantial and non-obvious.

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?

One front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a tight Args block with zero filler. Every parameter line earns its place with a unique behavior or default note; nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. The description covers purpose, all three parameter semantics, defaults, and edge cases (wildcard, ignored parameter). Minor gaps remain — no statement about requiring an authenticated session (sibling kairos_login suggests it) and no error/pagination behavior — but nothing essential to calling the tool correctly is missing.

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 fully compensate, and it does. Every parameter receives semantic detail beyond the bare schema: plan explains default resolution and wildcard semantics, bucket explains filtering plus its ignored-with-'*' interaction, and include_completed explains the 100% threshold and default. An agent cannot get this meaning from the schema, only from the description.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('List Planner tasks') and a purpose ('so a task can be referenced or completed'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling list_planner_plans (lists plans, not tasks) and from create_planner_task / complete_planner_task, so an agent can tell them apart on the description alone.

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 purpose clause implies workflow placement (list to get IDs, then complete), and the parameter notes define valid inputs. However, no alternative tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to guidance, such as 'call list_planner_plans first to discover plan names.' Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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