Tasks List Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing what the rows contain (schedule, state, predecessor info, quoted_name, quoted_qualified_name), but says nothing about result size, limits, or pagination behavior for what could be a large listing.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, with no preamble. The second sentence is more detailed than necessary but is not filler.

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?

Rich annotations and an output schema carry much of the burden, and the listing scope is clear. However, the most consequential gap — what `pattern` does and how it matches — is left unaddressed in both schema and description, leaving an agent unable to use the tool's main filter correctly.

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 67%, and the sole undescribed parameter, `pattern`, is not explained anywhere in the description either — an agent cannot tell it is a name filter or what syntax it accepts. The description instead spends its second sentence on return-field quoting rules that duplicate schema/output information rather than clarifying inputs.

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 and resource ("List tasks") plus the scope (database or schema) and the notable output fields (schedule, state, predecessor info). An agent can tell this is the enumeration tool rather than tasks_describe_task, though the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 the usage context (listing within a database or schema) but never says when to use this versus tasks_describe_task or tasks_execute_task, and gives no prerequisites or exclusions. Baseline implied-usage only.

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