list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's behavior (parsing and listing tasks with specific fields) but lacks details on error handling, file format expectations, or performance characteristics. It adds basic context but misses deeper behavioral traits.

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 concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose and following with output details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function efficiently.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is adequate for a basic read operation but lacks completeness. It explains what the tool does but not the return format, error cases, or dependencies, leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as file format details or validation rules, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Parse and list all tasks'), resource ('from a devpipe config.toml file'), and output details ('Shows task IDs, names, types, commands, and enabled status'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_tasks_verbose' by specifying the exact fields shown.

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 implies usage context (working with devpipe config files) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tasks_verbose' or 'analyze_project'. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion guidance.

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