List Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds the scoping to a single task list but does not mention filtering defaults, pagination, or that hidden/deleted tasks are excluded by default; saying 'all tasks' is slightly overstated relative to the default parameters.

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, direct, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is appropriately concise for a read-only list operation, though it could have used an additional sentence to clarify filters or sibling relationships.

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?

The tool has 13 parameters, 2 required, and many task-related siblings, so a one-line generic description is thin. The output schema and rich parameter descriptions compensate partially, but the description still lacks guidance on when to choose this tool and what the default visibility/filter behavior is.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 13 parameters, so the schema already carries the semantic burden. The description only adds the notion of 'specific task list', which maps to task_list_id, but it does not enhance understanding of filters, pagination, or default behaviors beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tasks in a specific task list'), clearly identifying what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_task_lists or get_task, but the 'specific task list' phrasing helps disambiguate it from operations that manage task lists or individual tasks.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_task_lists, get_task, or manage_task. The description only states what it does, with no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different task-related tool would be more appropriate.

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