timedoctor_list_tasks

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and filters, without mentioning pagination behavior, response format, permissions, or performance implications. For a list operation, this leaves the agent guessing about large result sets or required scopes.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and immediately notes optional filters. There is zero redundancy or filler, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return shape, pagination conventions (e.g., the 'page' parameter meaning 'skip'), or how to interpret the results. While the core function is clear, an agent could benefit from a note about the list response and handling large result sets.

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%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds a summary of the filter options (project, name, open/closed status) which reinforces their purpose but provides no additional syntax, formatting, or interplay details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 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 states a specific verb (List), resource (Time Doctor tasks), scope (in a company), and the available filters (project, name, open/closed status). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like timedoctor_get_task (singular) and timedoctor_list_projects (different resource) without ambiguity.

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 makes the context clear: use this to list tasks in a company, optionally filtered. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives like get_task for a single task, but the purpose is self-evident given the sibling names. A 5 would require explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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