List tasks

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false annotations already establish that this is a safe, closed-world read. The description adds the return field set, which is genuinely useful with no output schema, but says nothing about ordering, result size, or whether tasks are global or session-scoped.

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 names the action, the scope, and the returned fields with no redundant wording.

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 trivial zero-parameter read with annotations and no output schema, the description covers enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is minor: no mention of result ordering or whether the list is workspace-scoped.

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 there is no schema semantics to add beyond confirming that the listing is unconditional and unfiltered. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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?

"List every available task" gives a specific verb plus resource, and the description enumerates the returned fields (id, title, category, difficulty). It is clearly distinguishable from get_task by the word "every", though it never names that sibling 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before get_task or start_session. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_task, nor any exclusion about filtering or scope.

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