get_task_list

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the output includes key fields (names, IDs, states, priorities), which is useful. However, it does not clarify if the operation is read-only, if it requires special permissions, or other potential side effects. The prerequisite is noted.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence is essential.

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 simplicity (no parameters, output schema exists), the description is largely complete. It provides the main fields returned. However, it could briefly hint at the output format or behavior (e.g., blocking vs non-blocking) for full completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter details because none exist. Baseline is 3, and no additional value is needed.

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 clearly states it retrieves the list of OS tasks/threads, specifying the verb 'Get' and resource. It mentions the return fields (names, IDs, states, priorities), making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_task_stack, which could cause 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 mentions a prerequisite ('requires OS-awareness configured'), which gives usage context. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_callstack for stack trace) or when not to use it.

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