List tasks / achievements

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description adds the login requirement and the return of ids/slugs. Yet it omits details on pagination (limit parameter) or error behavior (e.g., if not logged in). This is adequate but not rich.

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 no fluff. The first sentence states the action and result, the second adds a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that are only partially descriptive, the description provides enough to understand the basic goal but lacks details on sorting, pagination, error handling, or the shape of the returned ids/slugs. It is minimally complete for a simple list operation.

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 of parameters is only 33% (projectId has a description). The description does not explain the 'limit' or 'search' parameters, nor their formats or defaults. Despite the low coverage, the description adds no value for these parameters, so the score is below the baseline of 3.

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 the tasks / achievements' and explains the return value (ids/slugs). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like specter_create_task or specter_edit_task.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires a one-time browser sign-in (specter_login)'), which helps the agent know when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use it, though the context among many create/edit tools implies its use for reference.

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