list_tasks

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns tasks assigned to the user, includes counts bucketed by today/this week/overdue/completed, includes task groups, and sorts by due date. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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, dense sentence that conveys the resource, scope, data contents, and sort order without any filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably covers what the caller should expect: tasks, counts, task groups, and ordering. It does not explain pagination behavior, but the schema documents page and per_page defaults, so the main missing piece is not critical for tool selection or basic invocation.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond loosely referencing workspace context and due-date sorting, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the resource (tasks assigned to you in a workspace), the portal context (Tasks tab), and the included data (counts, task groups, sort order). It is distinguishable from sibling list_* tools because it names the task domain specifically, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Lists' and does not reference any sibling by name.

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 implies when to use the tool: to retrieve tasks and task-related counts within a workspace. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools such as list_projects, list_notes, or list_attachments.

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