crm_list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals the return shape (content.columns/rows), empty-result handling (content.empty), and presentation constraints (Markdown table, no raw JSON). It also provides a follow-up action. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a list operation this is solid additional behavior disclosure.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by concise bullet instructions for presenting results and a useful workflow note. The tool description is compact and structured, though the 'After sending a prospect email' bullet is arguably a tangential workflow tip rather than a listing description.

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 (3 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers important usage context: output format, empty state, and a downstream workflow. It lacks detail on parameter values such as limit semantics or group_id origins, but it is still contextually adequate for most list-listing cases.

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 compensate. It mentions group_id and status with allowed values, but it does not explain what group_id means or where to find it, and it omits the limit parameter entirely. This leaves meaningful gaps in parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'List CRM tasks as a table', providing a specific verb and resource. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like crm_update_task and crm_generate_prospect_tasks, and the optional group_id/status filters clarify scope.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, but it implies usage context by describing the task table and including a workflow note about marking tasks done after sending emails. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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