list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read operation with filtering and a specific output feature. However, it omits traits like authorization requirements, rate limits, sorting order, or pagination behavior despite a 'limit' parameter.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the primary action and a notable output feature but lacks details on return format, pagination (despite limit param), ordering, or access implications. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for three parameters (status, owner, lane) by stating they are filters, but omits the 'limit' parameter entirely. The mention of 'open-blocker count' adds context not in the schema but does not cover all parameters.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'tasks', and the scope 'in this workspace'. It specifies two key features: filtering by status/owner/lane and inclusion of open-blocker count. This distinguishes it from sibling task mutation tools like task_create or task_assign.

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 filtered tasks but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives among siblings are mentioned, though none seem to serve the same purpose.

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