list_tasks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses role-based visibility (workers vs coordinators/admins) and filtering options. However, it does not explicitly state whether listing is safe or destructive, though it implies read-only behavior.

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 two sentences with important information front-loaded. The second sentence is dense but includes key usage guidelines and resumption strategy. Could be slightly more concise.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains return depends on role and filtering. It covers filtering options and a specific use case. Lacks details about pagination or sorting, but is fairly complete for its complexity.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the resuming work use case (completed:false) and filtering options. This provides context that goes beyond parameter definitions.

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 'List tasks from Delega' with specific verb (list) and resource (tasks). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning coordination via add_comment and resuming work with get_task_context.

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 explicit guidance: 'act only on tasks assigned to you or unowned ones you claim', 'coordinate on teammates' tasks via add_comment', and 'to resume work... call with completed:false, then use get_task_context'. This clearly states when to use and when not, with alternatives.

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