List staff tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds behavioral value beyond that: results are 'newest first' and it enumerates the returned material (content, due date, urgency, completion, assignees, patient and document ids), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention pagination or result caps, which the schema covers.

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?

Two dense sentences with the resource, ordering, returned fields and filters all front-loaded; nothing is padding. The phrase 'Filters sent as documented' is slightly circular, but overall it is tight and skimmable.

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, enumerating the returned fields and the newest-first ordering is exactly the missing context an agent needs. Read-only behavior is covered by annotations, so the only remaining gaps are pagination/limit behavior, which the schema itself documents.

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 86%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, and the description largely restates the filter names. Its one interpretive note ('is_completed (false for open tasks only)') duplicates the schema text almost verbatim, so it adds little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific resource (the Organization's staff task queue / HumanTasks) and states the ordering (newest first) plus the fields returned, so an agent knows exactly what this lists. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling, but no sibling tool overlaps this resource, so differentiation is implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated filters ('Filters sent as documented: patient_id, staff_member_id, document_id, is_completed'), which tells the agent how to narrow results, but it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when a filter combination is pointless. Adequate but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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