list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation with filtering, which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important traits like pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when no filters are applied. The description provides basic behavioral context but misses critical operational details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List tasks') followed by filter details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics for a list operation but lacks completeness. It covers parameters well but doesn't address return format, error conditions, or system constraints. For a tool with 4 parameters and no structured metadata, more context would be helpful.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all 4 parameters and their semantics: project_name, section_name, priority (with range 1-4), and due_today. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't provide format examples or deeper constraints.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'tasks', and specifies optional filtering capabilities. It distinguishes from siblings like create_task or update_task by focusing on retrieval rather than mutation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from list_projects which lists a different resource type.

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 through the mention of 'optional filters' but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_projects or complete_task. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts.

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