List tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that results include ids and status, which is mild behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations and does not need to disclose destructive effects. It also doesn't mention pagination behavior, but the schema descriptions cover pagination parameters, so this is acceptable.

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 phrase: 'Tasks of a project, with their ids and status.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler words. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple list operation but leaves some ambiguity. It doesn't clarify whether a project filter is required (the parameters are optional), and the return payload is only partially described as 'ids and status.' However, the schema covers parameters, and annotations cover safety, so the description is not critically deficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description's mention of 'project' aligns with project_id and project_name parameters but adds no new semantic detail about parameter values, defaults, or relationships. It does not need to repeat schema content.

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 indicates that the tool provides tasks of a project and includes ids and status. It effectively communicates the resource and scope, and the title 'List tasks' supplies the verb. However, it does not explicitly distinguish between listing multiple tasks versus fetching a single task (get_task), though the plural 'Tasks' weakly implies that.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'of a project' implies a project-based use case, but it does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives like get_task or list_projects. There is no 'when to use / when not to use' clarity.

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