weeek_list_tasks

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond 'list'. It says nothing about pagination semantics (despite offset/per_page params), result limits, sort order, or whether results span projects/workspaces.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding; the purpose and filter list are delivered immediately with no wasted words.

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 14-parameter query tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It should at least clarify pagination, default result scope, and the date/priority/type filters that the schema documents poorly.

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% and the description only paraphrases a subset of filter names (project, board, column, assignee, completion, tags, text search), mapping loosely to project_id, board_id, board_column_id, user_id, completed, tags, search. It ignores day, type, start_date, end_date, priority, offset and per_page, leaving nearly half the parameters explained nowhere.

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 (tasks) with the filter scope enumerated. It clearly distinguishes itself from mutation siblings like create_task/update_task by the read-only verb, but it never names an alternative sibling such as get_task for single-task retrieval.

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 word 'optional filters' implies the usage context (breadth-first retrieval), so intent is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs get_task, no guidance on combining filters, and no statement about default behavior when no filters are given.

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