Bernstein - Multi-agent orchestration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a listing operation but doesn't mention whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what happens with large datasets. The return format is mentioned but lacks detail on error handling or performance characteristics.

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 appropriately sized with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. The formatting with indentation improves readability, though the Args section could be slightly more concise by integrating the status values more directly into the main description.

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 the tool has an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and only one parameter with good description coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context about authentication, performance, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools, which are important for a task listing operation in a multi-tool environment.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It clearly documents the 'status' parameter, lists all possible values (open, claimed, in_progress, done, failed, blocked, cancelled), and indicates it's optional. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation for this single parameter tool.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('tasks from the Bernstein server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this listing tool from other task-related siblings like bernstein_create_subtask or bernstein_status, which would require more specificity for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bernstein_status or bernstein_health. It mentions an optional status filter but doesn't explain scenarios where filtering is beneficial or when other tools might be more appropriate for task-related operations.

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