projects_list_assignment_subtasksList checklist subtasks for a project assignment by project and assignment ID. Review task breakdowns and monitor completion status in Smartsheet Resource Management.
List subtasks (checklist tasks) for a project assignment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| assignment_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful clarification that subtasks are checklist tasks, but says nothing about pagination or result ordering. With annotations carrying the behavioral burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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 and no redundancy. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably a touch thin for a tool with two required parameters.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. The definition is minimally complete, but it omits any hint about how subtasks relate to assignments or whether a project_id/assignment_id mismatch matters.
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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented structurally, but the names project_id and assignment_id are largely self-explanatory. The description adds nothing about ID formats or that both are required, so it neither compensates for nor worsens the coverage gap.
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 verb (List), resource (subtasks/checklist tasks), and scope (for a project assignment), which clearly distinguishes it from projects_list_assignments and the create/delete subtask siblings. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the resource specificity makes the purpose unambiguous.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the related sibling tools (projects_create_assignment_subtask, projects_delete_assignment_subtask). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.