list_tasks

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

With no annotations supplied, the description does real work: it declares the operation read-only, discloses result ordering (ready-queue or recent-completion), states that results are bounded, and warns that the cursor is opaque. It does not cover cursor expiry, invalid-cursor behavior, or whether results are scoped to a project or workspace.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with scope and ending with the alternative-tool pointer. Each sentence carries information, though 'existing ready-queue or recent-completion ordering' is slightly vague for a sentence that is meant to be precise.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by describing the shape of each item as a summary lacking objective and acceptance criteria. For a simple three-parameter read-only list, that is nearly complete; only ordering-per-status and the end-of-pagination signal are left implicit.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden. It conceptually covers all three parameters, calling the cursor opaque (do not parse it) and the limit bounded, but it never explains the status enum values or how status selects the ordering.

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: read one task status section, with bounded limit and opaque cursor. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_task, which returns the full definition, so an agent can choose between them without opening either schema.

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 final clause gives a clear routing rule: use this for summaries, call get_task for the full definition. It stops short of stating exclusions, such as which ordering applies to which status or whether other siblings cover cross-status queries.

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