focus_list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'list tasks' without mentioning read-only nature, pagination, default parameters, or effects of filters. Lacks detail on side effects or guarantees.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and no redundant words. The 'Not Track' is a useful disambiguator. Excellent brevity and structure.

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 13 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It omits pagination behavior, workspace defaults, return format, and any caveats. The 'Not Track' note provides some product context, but the description is inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 only 38% (5 of 13 params have descriptions). The description highlights key filters (project, status, assignee, name, pinned) but doesn't explain array semantics, defaulting behavior, or edge cases like empty project_id. It adds moderate value by grouping filters but does not fully compensate for low 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?

Description clearly states the tool lists tasks in Toggl Focus with commonly used filters, distinguishing it from Track and siblings like focus_list_projects. The verb 'list' and resource 'tasks' are explicit, though the filter list is abbreviated.

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 'Not Track' tag hints at product differentiation, and listing filters implies use for task retrieval, but no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., focus_search for complex queries) is provided. Context is implied rather than stated.

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