list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or any authorization requirements. The description only covers output structure, leaving behavioral aspects unclear.

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 concise sentence that covers the core functionality. It is front-loaded and efficient, though it lacks structural elements like bullet points that might improve scanability.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about the output (status, priority, dependencies). However, it could be improved by noting that the list is filterable by status and clarifying the scope (e.g., all tasks belonging to the current context).

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 schema already provides full description of the status parameter (enum values and meaning). The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond showing that the returned list includes additional fields (priority, dependencies), which is about output, not parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate due to high schema coverage.

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 tool generates a structured task list with status tracking, priority, and dependencies, which precisely defines its purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task_detail (single task) and query_task (general query) by focusing on listing with filtering by status.

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 usage for listing tasks filtered by status but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like query_task or analyze_task. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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