gorelo_list_project_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination behavior, page-size limits, return shape, or the fact that filters combine as an AND. For a 12-parameter listing tool this is a bare minimum of behavioral context.

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?

One short sentence with zero wasted words and the resource front-loaded, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficient information density. It is concise without being informative.

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?

Given 12 parameters, filtering semantics, pagination via cursor, and no output schema, the description should explain the returned collection and paging behavior. None of this is present, so an agent cannot know key operational details without reading the schema in full.

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 100%, so every parameter including cursor, pageSize bounds, dueAfter/dueBefore semantics, and statusIds enum values is already documented in the schema; the description contributes no additional parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a clear verb+resource (list + project tasks), but it essentially restates the tool name and adds no scope details or sibling differentiation — an agent must infer how this differs from gorelo_get_project_task or gorelo_list_project_task_comments from the name alone.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gorelo_get_project_task or gorelo_list_project_sections, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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