fluig_task_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and delivers real detail: the effective pageSize is 100 here versus the BPM v2 default of 1000, explicitly to avoid blowing up context, and processId arrays are serialized to CSV server-side. It does not state read-only status explicitly (implicit in "list") or describe pagination totals, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the two operational caveats. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise get wrong; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 six-parameter, read-only-style list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope hints (pending/overdue/assignee), and the two traps (pageSize, processId serialization). It stops short of describing the returned record shape or pointing at the count sibling, but nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds two non-obvious semantics beyond the schema: the pageSize default is overridden to 100 with a rationale, and processId is sent as CSV after the server reads the array. env, page, expand, and fields get nothing extra, but the added notes are genuinely useful.

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?

Opens with a specific resource ("CAIXA DE TAREFAS") and enumerates the content it surfaces: pending items, overdue items, and the current assignee. An agent immediately knows this is a task-listing tool, but the description never names or contrasts with sibling tools like fluig_task_count or fluig_request_list, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing (an inbox view) and the pageSize warning implies "raise deliberately when you need more rows", but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives such as the count tool for volume-only questions.

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