list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly states the client-side filtering design, the 500-item page-through limit, and the meaning of a null cursor. These are non-obvious and essential for the agent to understand the tool's actual operation.

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?

The description is three sentences long, starting with the core purpose and then providing two concise clarifications about filtering and pagination. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

The description covers the important peculiarities (client-side filtering, pagination limit, cursor exhaustion) and the output schema exists to explain the return shape. It does not mention potential error scenarios or prerequisites like project configuration, but given the schema and output schema, the overall context is sufficient for most usage.

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 high at 80% (only limit lacks an inline description), but the tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that limit caps the number of returned matches and that filtering on state/assignee happens client-side. This enhances understanding of how the parameters actually behave.

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 tool lists tasks in the configured project with optional filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_members, list_labels, and get_task, which have different resources or granularity. The verb 'list' paired with 'tasks' and 'project' scope makes the purpose immediately evident.

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?

The description provides important context about when to use the tool: it explains that filtering is done client-side because the underlying endpoint ignores state/assignee params, so users should rely on this tool for filtered views. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_task for a single task', so it stops short of a 5.

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