rlm_task_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It explains cursor-based pagination and the additional returned fields (owner, updated_at). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only, the nature of listing tasks is non-destructive. The description adequately discloses behavior without contradictions.

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 concise: three sentences with a bullet list. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists enhancements, and ends with usage guidance. No unnecessary 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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, pagination method, added fields, and sibling differentiation. It is complete and leaves no obvious gaps.

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 100%, providing descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of cursor-based pagination and noting that owner and updated_at fields are returned, which enhances comprehension beyond the schema alone.

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 canonical HierarchicalTask N3 tasks with cursor-based pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming rlm_htask_tree for hierarchy and positioning itself as an enhanced version of rlm_tasks.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('queue-style dashboards and progress reports') and when to use alternative (rlm_htask_tree for full hierarchy). Also notes it's an enhanced version of rlm_tasks.

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