list_user_assignments

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety or disclose that 'all' tasks is subject to the 'limit' parameter (schema default 100). The phrase 'List all tasks' could mislead an agent into expecting unpaginated results.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core operation and the two optional filters efficiently.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains what it lists and the filters, but lacks details about pagination, the return format, or the effect of the 'limit' parameter on 'all tasks'. This is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves some gaps.

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 each parameter having a description. The description restates that project and status can be filters, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The 'limit' and 'user_id' semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'tasks assigned to a user', with optional filters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ftrack_list_tasks (general task listing) and ftrack_assign_user_to_task (assignment mutation).

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 clear context: it is for listing a user's assignments with optional project/status filters. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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