list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior: global vs. per-workflow listing, handling of legacy file-backed tasks, and that dismissed tasks are excluded by default. It implicitly indicates a read operation ('list'). However, it does not explicitly mention rate limits, pagination, or potential performance impact beyond 'use sparingly,' but for a list tool this is sufficient.

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 four sentences, front-loading the core function, then providing usage guidance, return information, and a caution. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical and efficient.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers key aspects: two usage modes, return fields, filtering options, and a performance warning. It does not mention pagination, error handling, or authentication, but these are less critical for a list tool. Overall, it's fairly complete for its purpose.

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% with detailed descriptions. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral implications of providing or omitting workflowId, and clarifying the default behavior for legacy tasks. This enriches the agent's understanding of parameter semantics.

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 starts with 'List tasks' and clearly distinguishes between two modes: listing all tasks across all workflows (omit workflowId) and listing tasks for a single workflow (provide workflowId). It also specifies what is returned (status, creator, priority, due dates), making the tool's purpose specific and distinguishable from siblings like add_task or load_workflow.

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 explicitly states when to omit or provide workflowId, and advises 'Use sparingly — load_workflow already includes active workflow tasks,' providing clear context on when to use this tool versus an alternative.

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