list-tasks

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior like pagination, ordering, or safety. It only states 'list all' and optional filters, omitting that results are paginated (page, per-page params) and that it's a read-only operation. Agent may not know about pagination constraints or default behavior.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and resource, and immediately lists filtering capabilities. 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?

Despite 7 parameters and no output schema, the description only mentions three filter categories. It omits pagination, status filtering, and what the output looks like (e.g., list of task objects). This is insufficient for an agent to confidently use the tool without inspecting the schema.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by summarizing filter categories (project, person, date range) that map to specific parameters, but does not mention status or pagination parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does most of the work.

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 action ('list') and resource ('tasks/allocations'), and mentions optional filtering by project, person, or date range. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-allocations' or 'list-project-tasks', which could cause confusion.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many list and get tools (e.g., 'list-project-tasks', 'get-task') but the description provides no context on when this tool is appropriate or when to defer to others.

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