List tasks

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower; the description still adds meaningful behavior by disclosing that the API defaults to returning only not-completed tasks and that 'todo' is the default order. It hedges with 'the API documents that', and does not mention pagination or rate limits, so it is not exhaustive.

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 covering both branches of behavior, with the no-workspace case front-loaded. It is efficient, though the nested parenthetical about the API's documentation adds a bit of clutter.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description covers the branch logic and the default incomplete-task filter, which is the most important behavior. However, it omits result-size/pagination behavior (max_results defaults to 200, caps at 1000) and any note that include_contact_details alters redaction, leaving gaps an agent must infer.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented structurally. The description adds that order accepts todo/all/custom and is its default, and reinforces the workspace_id conditional, but says nothing about max_results or the privacy implications of include_contact_details beyond what the schema already states. 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 states a specific verb+resource and, unusually, splits the scope by parameter: without workspace_id it lists the current user's incomplete 'My Tasks', with workspace_id it lists the workspace's tasks. This is a clear, precise statement of what the tool returns. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_task or list_information_requests, but the name plus scope text make the boundary reasonably obvious.

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 clear conditional guidance: pass workspace_id or omit it, and the order parameter only applies with workspace_id. Uses a clear context but names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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