list_tasks_verbose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Shows task execution statistics and averages,' which adds some context about output behavior, but it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the config parameter is omitted. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded: the first states the action, and the second adds output details. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured to improve clarity.

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 complexity of listing tasks with verbose output, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, or how the 'verbose' aspect differs from non-verbose alternatives. For a tool with no structured support, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter ('config') clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain the parameter's role or usage. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 the tool 'List tasks using devpipe list --verbose command' which provides a verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), but it's vague about what 'tasks' specifically refers to in this context. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_tasks' (without 'verbose'), leaving ambiguity about the difference between them.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'list_tasks_verbose' over 'list_tasks' or other sibling tools like 'get_dashboard_data' or 'view_run_logs', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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