team_time_list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds two real behavioral facts: results include completed history by default, and pagination requires replaying the cursor with unchanged filters. It says nothing about result ordering, default page size, or what an empty result means.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and zero filler. The coordination sentence is dense and slightly cryptic ('claim markers'), but it earns its place by driving filter strategy.

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?

Read-only annotations mean return-value explanation is not strictly required, and the pagination rule is a genuinely useful addition. However, for an 11-parameter, zero-coverage filter tool with no output schema, the description leaves too much of the filtering surface unaddressed for an agent to call it confidently.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely does not. It touches 'query' (title search) and 'cursor' (follow every cursor with unchanged filters) and alludes to project/status filters, but leaves dueFrom/dueTo, tagIds, clientId, statusId, assigneeId, statusCategory, and limit completely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search tasks') plus an explicit scope note that completed history is included, which an agent could not infer from the name. It does not name the sibling (e.g. team_time_get_task) that handles single-task lookup, so differentiation is only partial.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance ('For coordination, inspect ALL unfinished project tasks and claim markers') and warns that title search alone can miss overlapping work, which steers filter choice. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions or naming an alternative tool for direct task retrieval.

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