weeek_list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals the filtering behavior and output is a list, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (per_page/offset), sort defaults, the meaning of the 'type' parameter (action/meet/call), or what task fields are returned. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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?

Single efficient sentence, zero wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'List' with resource 'tasks' and immediately enumerates the filter dimensions. Perfectly concise for a list tool.

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 has 14 parameters with only 36% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations - a fairly complex tool. The description covers surface-level filtering but omits clarity on several parameters (type, dates, priority, pagination) and doesn't describe the return format. Adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a tool with this parameter complexity.

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 coverage is only 36%, so the description should compensate but doesn't. It mentions the filter dimensions generically (project, board, column, assignee, completion, tags, text search) which maps to some params, but the 'type' filter (action/meet/call), date-range semantics, pagination, and priority are not explained in the description despite being ambiguous.

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 with optional filters, naming key filter dimensions (project, board, column, assignee, completion, tags, text search). It distinguishes from siblings like get_task (single task) and task_timer, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative for comprehensive filtering searches.

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 for filtered task retrieval but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs get_task, or when to use search vs filters. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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