list_accepted_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: sort order (newest first), default filter (working and input-required), and that each result includes the count of unresponded peer messages. It omits pagination/limit behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the identity of the tool and then adds ordering, default scope, and the unresponded-message metric. Slightly comma-heavy but no filler.

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?

Return values need not be explained because an output schema exists, and the description covers the essential calling context: default state, ordering, and a notable aggregate field. It could be more complete by naming allowed state overrides or sibling alternatives.

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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description's 'by default what's still in progress' restates the default but adds little syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Work you've accepted' = list accepted tasks) and describes ordering and default scope. Sibling differentiation is implicit via 'accepted' versus list_available_tasks / list_delegated_tasks, but those siblings are never named, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 phrase 'by default what's still in progress' implies when this tool is useful and what the default filter does, but it never says when to prefer list_delegated_tasks or list_available_tasks, nor when to override the state parameter.

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