list_tasks

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint (true), destructiveHint (false), and idempotentHint (true). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond clarifying that tasks are checkboxes and that scope can be vault-wide or note-specific. It does not detail return behavior, pagination, or how parameters like status/done/todo affect scope. With annotations providing the safety profile, the description's contribution is limited.

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 sentence of 9 words, which is efficient and front-loaded. It clearly states the core functionality without extraneous detail. However, it could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without becoming verbose, e.g., mentioning that tasks are sourced from markdown files.

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 has 10 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain how parameters like file/path/daily combine for scoping, the effect of status/done/todo flags, or the return format. An agent would need to infer this from parameter descriptions alone, which may be insufficient for correct use.

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?

All 10 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool's description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the expectation but not exceeding it.

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 the tool lists tasks (checkboxes) in the vault or a specific note. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_files or list_folders by specifying the resource type (tasks), but does not explicitly differentiate from search_with_context which might also return tasks. The verb+resource combination is clear and specific.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use list_tasks vs search or search_with_context for finding specific tasks. No when-not-to-use criteria or prerequisite information is given.

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