List tasks of a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default result filter (finished tasks hidden) and that estimated time is in minutes, which is genuine context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with the read-only hint.

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 the action and followed by the two behavioral facts an agent needs. The includeFinished clause duplicates the schema's default note, a small redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the filtering rule and the units of a key returned field, which is enough to call it correctly. It says nothing about result ordering or volume, a minor gap given the absence of an output 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, including the includeFinished default. The description largely restates the includeFinished behavior and adds no new parameter-level detail; the minutes note refers to a returned value, not an input. 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 and resource ('List the tasks of a project') plus the domain purpose (man-hour tracking), which clearly separates it from list_projects, get_manhours, and the punch/stamp tools. Sibling routing is implied by the resource rather than explicitly stated, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a useful default-scope rule (finished tasks excluded unless includeFinished is true) but never says when to pick this over alternatives like get_today_status, get_manhours, or summarize_working_hours. Usage is implied by the resource rather than guided.

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