clio_find_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses filtering capabilities but omits critical behavioral details such as default limit, pagination, ordering, the effect of omitting all filters (likely returns all accessible tasks), and whether results are scoped to the authenticated user. The description adds little beyond what the schema already names.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and resource, then lists filter dimensions. There is zero redundant phrasing, and the structure makes it easy to parse. It could be longer, but for what it says, it is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers high-level purpose and filter categories. It does not explain return format, pagination/limit behavior, whether filters are combinable, or what a successful response looks like. Given the absence of other structured context, this is insufficiently complete for an agent to invoke confidently.

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 50%, so the description must compensate. It adds group-level meaning by summarizing filters and explicitly naming 'due-date range' for due_from/due_to. However, it does not elaborate on the 'limit' parameter, and it largely restates property names rather than adding deeper semantics like format constraints or behavior when multiple filters are combined.

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 'List' and the resource 'tasks', with a concise list of filter dimensions (matter, assignee, status, due-date range). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling find tools like clio_find_matters or clio_get_task, but the resource name and filter context make the purpose unambiguous.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The description only says 'List tasks...' without explaining when to prefer this over clio_get_task, clio_complete_task, or other find tools. There are no exclusions or context cues about optional filters or combinations.

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