List my tasks

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: what fields come back (workspace, category, priority), the exact membership of the active and done statuses, and the meaning of the reassigned flag as a hand-off from another person's queue. It says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination, which is the remaining gap.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries information — return fields, status semantics, reassigned handling — with no filler. The phrasing is densely compressed, with the parenthetical '(needed to create a task)' and the final clause both crammed into long sentences, which costs some readability.

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 no output schema, the description takes on the job of describing the payload and does so at a high level (workspace, category, priority per task). For a two-parameter read tool it covers status meaning, scoping, and the reassigned edge case. Only minor operational details (the 'all' option, default status, result ordering or limits) are absent.

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 50%: workspace_id is documented in the schema, while status is a bare enum with a default. The description compensates by defining 'active' (queued, in progress, on hold) and 'done' (completed, cancelled), which is real added meaning. However, it never mentions the 'all' value or the default of active, so the enum is only two-thirds explained.

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 states the resource and its scope precisely: tasks assigned to you, across all workspaces, including each task's workspace, category and priority values. It is clearly distinguishable from get_task, which it names as the tool for reading a single task in detail. The verb 'list' is only implied by the name rather than stated, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 gives concrete usage rules: use this for your own queue, and when a task has the reassigned flag set, read it with get_task (comments included) before working on it. The active/done status definitions also tell the agent which view to request. It does not cover when to prefer this over other queue-wide tools or what 'all' is for, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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