invoiceninja_list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: related names (client_name, project_name, status_name) are resolved automatically, and the extra_filters contract is spelled out. It omits any note on pagination limits or response shape, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then groups value lists and the sibling hand-off into short, scannable sentences. The dense filter-key enumeration is justified by the undocumented extra_filters object, though the description is on the long side.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers the ambiguous surface (extra_filters keys, automatic name resolution, and the get_task follow-up). It leaves return/pagination behavior unstated, but with read-only annotations and a documented schema the gap is minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns above baseline by documenting the otherwise opaque extra_filters object keys (number, project_tasks, project_ids, task_status, user_id, assigned_user, activity_dates, created_between/updated_between formats, tag_ids, assigned_user_ids) that the schema itself only gestures at with 'see the tool description'.

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 tasks from Invoice Ninja') plus the supported capabilities (filtering, sorting, pagination). It distinguishes itself from invoiceninja_get_task by routing full-record lookups elsewhere, though it does not clarify its boundary against generic siblings like invoiceninja_list_records or invoiceninja_search.

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 concrete usage context: the valid client_status values, the full set of extra_filters keys, and an explicit hand-off ('Use invoiceninja_get_task with an id from this list for the full record'). It does not state when NOT to use this tool or contrast it with the other list_* siblings.

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