ftrack_list_tasks

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a simple listing action, but does not disclose the default limit of 100 (though present in the schema), pagination behavior, whether results are sorted, or any potential side effects. The term 'List' implies read-only, but the description does not explicitly confirm this or add context beyond the name and schema.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'List' and immediately identifies the resource and scope. Every word contributes to the core message, and there is no padding or redundant restatement of 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 tool with 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not clarify the return format (e.g., array of task entities), how filters like 'parent_id' and 'project_id' interact, or what 'context' means in hoftrack's domain model. Given the breadth of sibling list tools, this description lacks sufficient context for an agent to confidently invoke it without further schema inspection.

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 input schema provides descriptions for all 5 parameters, achieving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning (e.g., how 'parent_id' relates to 'context'), but the schema already documents each parameter sufficiently. The description does not detract from the schema, so the baseline score is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List tasks', and further scopes it to 'a project or context'. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ftrack_list_projects and ftrack_list_asset_versions, which target different resources. However, it does not explicitly name any siblings or provide an exclusionary qualifier, so it falls short of the top score.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and description imply it is the tool for listing tasks, there is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer it over ftrack_get_entity or ftrack_list_notes, or how it relates to the other list_* siblings. This is a minimal viable description but lacks adoption guidance.

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