list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it discloses ordering (newest first), scope (every task of this project), and an unusual inclusion trait ('records no reader could judge'), but omits read-only safety, pagination, filtering behavior, and whether it mutates. It adds some behavioral context but is far from complete for an unannotated tool.

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. However, its compressed jargon ('reconciliation pass', 'records no reader could judge') sacrifices clarity, so it is concise but not optimally structured.

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 one-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the status filter, return scope, and what 'reconciliation pass' and 'records no reader could judge' mean. It only gives ordering and project scope, leaving an agent unable to invoke it confidently with a status filter.

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 description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter, status, is never mentioned in the description. Worse, 'Every task' could mislead an agent into ignoring the status enum filter. No meaning is provided for status beyond the bare enum values.

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 identifies the resource (tasks of this project) and ordering (newest first), so an agent can infer it is a listing tool, but it never states the verb 'list' explicitly and adds obscure qualifiers ('after a reconciliation pass', 'records no reader could judge') that obscure rather than sharpen purpose. It does not distinguish itself from sibling list_roles.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives (e.g., list_roles, check, result), and no exclusions. The only contextual cue is 'after a reconciliation pass,' which is unexplained and does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over siblings.

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