uisp_list_tasks

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

The description is essentially restating that it lists tasks and their status, which is already implied by the tool name and the 'status' parameter. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it fails to disclose key behavioral details such as whether it only returns completed tasks or includes in-progress ones, the ordering of results, or any rate limits. It also does not contradict annotations since none are present.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose. It is efficient and free of unnecessary jargon or filler, earning top marks for conciseness and structure.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required) and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't indicate what the response structure looks like, how pagination works, or any default behaviors. Since the parameter schema already covers parameters well, the description covers the core use but leaves gaps in operational expectations.

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?

The schema covers all 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'status' as a filter and 'background tasks' but doesn't add much beyond what the schema already says for parameters like 'period' or 'page'. It adds marginal context by listing task types, but not enough to raise the score.

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 the verb 'List', the resource 'background tasks', and examples of what those tasks include (firmware upgrades, backups, mass operations), making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool uisp_get_tasks_in_progress, which could be confused as a filtered subset.

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 implies that this tool lists background tasks and provides a 'status' filter, suggesting it's used for viewing task history. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over uisp_get_tasks_in_progress (e.g., for historical tasks versus currently running), nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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