list_project_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds only the read-only listing intent and the optional scoping, and says nothing about result size, pagination behavior, or default ordering beyond what the schema's 'limit' field implies.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the core action front-loaded and the optional qualifier clearly marked. No filler.

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?

For a simple, fully-described, zero-required-parameter list tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description is adequate. It lacks only return-shape/pagination notes, which are minor given there is no output schema to lean on.

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%, so the schema already documents limit, query, and project_sys_id. The description restates the parent-project scoping but adds no encoding/syntax detail for the 'query' parameter or format guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('List') and resource ('project tasks'), and even names the underlying table (pm_project_task), which lets an agent distinguish it from list_catalog_tasks, list_hr_tasks, or list_scrum_tasks. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the table name does much of that work.

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 phrase 'optionally scoped to a parent project' implies the main usage context, but the description never says when to prefer this over generic query_records or the other task-list tools, nor are prerequisites or pagination expectations stated.

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