alga_projects_tasks_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact that the result set is not paginated, warning the agent that responses may be complete/large in one shot. The cross-tool dependency for phase IDs is also disclosed, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences with the primary action front-loaded, then the optional filter, then the source-of-IDs hint. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, optional filtering, pagination behavior, and the prerequisite tool for phase IDs. The only gap is the shape of the returned task records, which is left entirely unspecified.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does explain both roles: project_id scopes the listing to one project and phase_id is an optional narrowing filter rather than a requirement. It does not add format or length details beyond the schema's pattern/maxLength constraints, which is acceptable since those are already encoded.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all tasks in a project') with the scope qualifier that tasks are project-bound. It names alga_projects_phases_list as the source of phase IDs, which separates it from the phase listing tool, but it never contrasts itself with alga_projects_tasks_get, so the list-vs-fetch boundary is left implicit.

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?

Gives concrete usage direction: use it bare for all project tasks, or pass phase_id to narrow to a single phase, plus a pointer to alga_projects_phases_list for obtaining those IDs. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., when to use alga_projects_tasks_get instead), so it is clear context without full alternatives guidance.

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