list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, and the description discloses no behavioral traits. The tool has 15 parameters implying pagination, filtering, and expansion, but the description is silent on return format, pagination defaults, rate limits, or side effects. This is a serious gap for safe and effective use.

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 overly terse, consisting of only two words. While concise, it fails to earn its place because it adds no useful information. A properly scoped description could be short but should still clarify scope or behavior.

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 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how pagination works, or which parameters are required/optional in practice. This tool definition is far from minimal viable completeness.

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 60%, meaning many parameters have descriptions in the schema, but the tool description adds zero value beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters interact (e.g., relationship between 'Organization', 'Space', 'board'), nor does it clarify the meaning of 'expand' or 'status' further. For a tool with many parameters, this is insufficient.

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 tasks' is a tautology of the tool name and does not clarify scope (e.g., which tasks, in what context). It fails to distinguish from siblings like 'search_tasks' or 'list_subtasks', which also list tasks but with different filters and behaviors.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_tasks, get_task). No mention of prerequisites, context, or preferred scenarios. The agent is left to infer from the parameter names alone.

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