Systemonomic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (tasks with specific fields) but fails to mention critical behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, or pagination handling. The output schema exists, but the description does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond the basic return structure.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by details about task fields. There is no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter hints or usage context more seamlessly.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the structure of returned tasks, but it lacks important contextual details like authentication needs, error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but gaps remain in behavioral and usage guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention the 'project_id' parameter at all. However, since there is only one parameter and the tool name implies listing tasks within a project, the purpose is somewhat clear. The baseline is adjusted to 3 due to the single parameter, but the description adds no specific semantic details about the parameter.

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 resource ('all tasks in a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_suggestions' or 'list_atss_runs', which prevents a score of 5.

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 like 'list_suggestions' or 'create_task'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid project_id, and does not mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.

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