tasks_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the core action without noting that the operation is read-only, whether pagination exists (though parameters hint at it), what authentication is needed, or how filtering/ordering works. The mention of 'manual + booking' is ambiguous and not explained.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks essential information. It does not waste words, but it also does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name. More structured detail could be provided in the same space.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to leverage context signals: it does not explain how to use the 8 parameters, what output format to expect, or how this tool differs from the many task siblings. The complexity of the tool (many parameters, no schema docs) demands a richer description.

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% and the description does not explain any of the 8 parameters (q, limit, offset, source, status, group_id, to_time, from_time). The phrase 'manual + booking' might relate to the `source` parameter but is unclear. The agent gets no help understanding what values or formats are expected.

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 explicitly states 'List tasks for a Telegram group', which clearly identifies the verb (List), resource (tasks), and scope (Telegram group with manual+booking types). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasks_get (single task) and tasks_create.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tasks_count (for counting) or tasks_get (for a single task). The description does not mention exclusion criteria or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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