hub_task_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries all responsibility. It only states the listing and filtering behavior but does not disclose key traits like whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, pagination, or side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It earns its place by stating the core function and filter options, though additional context could be added without harming conciseness.

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 tool has 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides the basic listing purpose and filter possibilities, which is adequate for a simple tool. However, the lack of output description or parameter semantics leaves gaps in completeness, especially given the 0% schema coverage.

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 0%, yet the description only says 'Filter by project and/or status' without explaining the meaning of parameter values (e.g., what 'open', 'done', 'all' represent for status, or the expected format for project). The enum is provided but not clarified, leaving ambiguity.

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 'List backlog tasks. Filter by project and/or status.' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('backlog tasks'), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hub_task_add (adds tasks) and hub_search (likely broader 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?

The description mentions optional filtering by project and status, implying usage for listing tasks with constraints. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., hub_search for broader queries, hub_get for a single task) or any exclusions.

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