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 mentions 'active cards' but does not clarify what 'active' means, whether there is pagination, ordering, or any side effects. The scope of returned data is vague.

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, clear sentence with no superfluous information. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded, conveying the core purpose without waste.

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 the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description minimally covers the purpose. However, it does not explain return value details, what constitutes 'active', or any constraints (e.g., maximum number of cards). This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

There are no parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not add meaning beyond the empty schema, but that is acceptable since no additional parameter context is needed. However, it misses an opportunity to clarify if any implicit defaults or configurations apply.

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 active cards from a configured To Do list. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('cards from To Do list'), and is distinct from sibling tools (complete, delete, add), so purpose is unambiguous.

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?

While the description implies this is for retrieving tasks, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like complete_task or add_task. The context of sibling tools provides some implied guidance, but lacks direct when-not-to-use or prerequisite information.

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