tasks_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '获取正在执行的任务列表' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't explicitly state whether this requires specific permissions, what the return format looks like, whether results are paginated, or any rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides a clear parameter section with brief but informative explanations. Every sentence earns its place, though the formatting with extra whitespace could be slightly cleaner.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels at parameter documentation but lacks important context about when to use this tool versus siblings, behavioral characteristics, and expected output format. For a task listing tool in what appears to be an Elasticsearch/Opensearch context, more guidance about the tool's role in the ecosystem would be helpful.

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 description provides excellent parameter semantics despite 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains all 5 parameters with practical examples: '动作过滤（支持通配符）如 cluster:* 或 indices:data/write/*' for actions, '是否显示详细信息' for detailed, '父任务 ID' for parent_task_id, '节点过滤' for nodes, and '分组方式 nodes/parents/none' for group_by. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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's purpose: '获取正在执行的任务列表' (Get the list of tasks being executed). This is a specific verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('正在执行的任务列表' - list of tasks being executed). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tasks_get' or 'cat_tasks', which appear to be related task management tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools related to tasks (tasks_cancel, tasks_get, cat_tasks), but the description doesn't explain how this 'tasks_list' differs from those or when it should be preferred. The parameter documentation doesn't substitute for usage guidance.

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