workflow_list_my_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds two useful behavioral nuggets beyond that: tasks are 'persisted' (i.e., stored records, not ephemeral/in-memory state) and results are scoped to the current user, implying an authentication-derived filter. It does not describe ordering, pagination, or volume limits.

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?

A single clause, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing in it is redundant with the tool name.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the agent still lacks any sense of the return shape (fields per task, ordering, whether the list can be large) and of what 'persisted' distinguishes from other task representations in this workflow family. The description is adequate to invoke the tool but thin on outcome expectations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so according to the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to add, and it correctly avoids inventing filtering options the schema does not support.

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 (List), a specific resource (persisted workflow tasks), and a scope qualifier (visible to the current user). It is clearly distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like workflow_claim_task or workflow_complete_task, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as workflow_get_task_context or workflow_get_task_audit which also surface task information. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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