list_tasks

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context: it discloses what is returned (today/this week/overdue/completed counts plus task groups) and the ordering (sorted by due date), which the agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: it identifies the resource first, then scope, then return content and ordering. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does (counts and task groups, sorted by due date). Pagination and session/origin handling are left to the schema, which is acceptable given full 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters including the curr_date bucketing and workspace_id source. The description's reference to 'today / this week / overdue' counts loosely reinforces curr_date semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific resource (tasks), scope (vendor-assigned to you in a workspace), and even maps it to a concrete UI location (the portal's Tasks tab). No sibling tool overlaps with tasks, so the agent can identify it unambiguously.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (list tasks for a workspace) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. No sibling competes for this resource, so the gap is mild rather than harmful.

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