list_my_tasks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that the scope is the currently configured user. It does not disclose behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, or rate limits, which would be helpful for an agent to understand results handling. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core action and subject, with no unnecessary words. It is concise and efficient.

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 is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic purpose but lacks details on result ordering, pagination, or return structure, which would be helpful for completeness. Given the tool's complexity, it is minimally adequate.

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 the single parameter 'limit', including its default value. The description does not add any further meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 assigned to the currently configured user, using a specific verb (list) and resource (tasks) with a clear scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like 'list_approvals' or 'list_hr_cases' by focusing on the current user's 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?

The description implies usage context by specifying the intended user (currently configured user). While it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, the context is clear enough for most scenarios. A slight improvement would be to contrast with other task listing tools like 'get_task'.

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