list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about tasks being async long-running operations and the tool's purpose for monitoring, which complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, and every sentence adds meaningful context (what tasks are, examples, usage purpose).

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 simple list tool with well-documented parameters, the description covers the core functionality and purpose. It hints at return structure (tasks with status) but could be more explicit about pagination behavior or authentication requirements. Still adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% with both limit and projectId parameters well-described. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, thus meeting the baseline score of 3 as per guidelines.

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 'Lists' and the resource 'async tasks in Cognigy.AI'. It provides concrete examples (snapshot creation, training, imports) and distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_snapshots or get_task by focusing on background job status monitoring.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this to monitor background job status', giving clear context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or references to alternative tools for related purposes, such as get_task for individual task details.

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