list_all_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns both active and completed tasks along with specific fields, indicating a read-only operation with no side effects. However, it does not mention potential limitations like pagination or performance constraints.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that convey all necessary information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value: the first states the function and output, the second gives a use case.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a simple listing tool. It covers the core behavior and retrieval scope, though it could mention ordering or whether tasks are aggregated.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining what data is returned (task names, descriptions, rewards) without needing parameters, making it informative beyond the schema.

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 specifies the verb 'list', resource 'all tasks', and scope 'from your LifeUp app', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also details the returned data (names, descriptions, rewards) and distinguishes from siblings like search_tasks by stating it returns all tasks.

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 a use case ('useful for reviewing your current workload or understanding task patterns') but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like search_tasks for filtered queries. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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