List Teamline tasks

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral specifics: defaulting to the current user when channel/user omitted, the requirement that channel be present when list is set, and the token source (TEAMLINE_API_KEY). These go beyond the annotation hints and clarify default behavior not obvious from the schema.

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?

Single dense sentence front-loaded with the action ('List Teamline tasks via tasks.list') then packs filter definitions. It is efficient but slightly run-on; grouping could improve readability. Still, 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?

With rich annotations (readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent) and a full parameter schema, the description covers the key default behavior (defaults to self), required dependencies, and token source. No output schema exists, so return format isn't expected. Minor gaps like pagination details are not critical for this operation.

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%, but the description adds valuable format details (e.g., '#name' for channel, '~name' for list, '@name/email/slackId' for user) and the dependency that channel is required if list is used. This enriches the schema without redundancy, so above baseline.

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 begins with a clear verb+object:

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like teamline_tasks_create or teamline_tasks_complete. The purpose implies listing, but there is no direct comparison to alternatives or conditions that would favor this tool. However, the distinct names make inference easy.

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