tasks_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds one useful behavioral note, 'Поля в ответе в camelCase', but doesn't elaborate on pagination, defaults, or other runtime behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded and the camelCase note is a meaningful second sentence. Nothing repetitive.

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 rich schema (limit, order, start, filter, select), output schema, and annotations cover most operational details. The only notable gap is usage guidance for choosing this over sibling task tools, but nothing needed to make a correct call is missing.

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 100%, with detailed parameter docs including filter syntax, status semantics, defaults, and field selection. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.

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 'Найти задачи по фильтру' – a specific verb ('find'), resource ('tasks'), and scoping mechanism ('by filter'). This is clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from task_get or other task_* siblings beyond the filter wording.

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 when-to-use vs alternatives guidance: it never mentions task_get for singular lookups or when this list is appropriate versus other list tools. The filter phrase implies a use case, but there are no exclusions or sibling routing instructions.

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