tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds default behavior (list_name defaults to all lists, status defaults to open), which is genuinely useful behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or ordering.

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?

Compact and front-loaded: scope and sibling differentiation come first, then the two parameter notes. No filler, though the `next` cross-reference is slightly terse and assumes the reader knows what `next` does.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and both input parameters are explained despite 0% schema coverage. The main residual gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance versus `overdue`/`agenda`, but for a two-param read-only task lister the definition is essentially 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 carries the full burden — and it does cover both parameters: `list_name` (name of a list, default = all lists) and `status` (open/done/cancelled with open as default). The 'default = all lists' clarification adds meaning beyond the schema, since the schema only shows a null default.

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 names the resource (Google Tasks) and, more usefully, states the scope that sets it apart from siblings: it returns tasks with or without dates, and claims to be the only tool besides `next` that surfaces undated tasks. The retrieval verb is implicit rather than explicit, but an agent can still tell it apart from `agenda`, `overdue`, and `containers`.

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?

It hints at the selection criterion by contrasting with `next` for undated tasks, and states the defaults (all lists, status=open), which implies a broad listing use case. However, it never says explicitly when to prefer this over siblings like `overdue` or `agenda`, so the guidance 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.