list_assessment_plan_tasks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains pagination (offset, limit, hasMore) and return items structure (id, title, etc.), which is sufficient for a read-only list operation. No contradictory or missing behavioral aspects.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by clarification, then explicit Args and Returns sections. No redundant information.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately covers return format and item structure. Missing mention of prerequisites (e.g., parent document must exist) or error scenarios, but sufficient for a typical list tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: parent_doc_uuid as optional scope, offset as zero-based pagination, limit with range 1-100 and default 10. Adds meaning beyond schema defaults.

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?

Description clearly states it lists task elements within OSCAL Assessment Plan documents, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('task elements'). It differentiates from siblings like list_assessment_plans and list_assessment_plan_activities by specifying 'task elements' rather than activities or plans, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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?

Description mentions optional parameter parent_doc_uuid to scope results, implying usage context. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_assessment_plan_activities or when not to use it.

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