List tasks in a project

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope detail: it lists only 'active tasks' and clarifies that tasks belong to a specifc Clockify project. It doesn't discuss pagination or ordering, but this is a minor gap for a simple read-only list.

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 focused sentences with zero filler. The first sentence delivers the core action and scope, while the second provides the use case and prerequisite. This is an efficient, well-structured description.

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 simple read-only list operation with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action, the active-task scope, the required input source, and the downstream purpose. The mention of taskId gives enough signal for an agent to invoke the tool and use its result correctly, though an explicit return-shape note would make it complete.

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 already fully documents projectId and name. The description adds only the note that projectId comes from list_projects, which is largely restating the schema property's origin rather than adding new semantic meaning.

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 action ('List'), a scoped resource ('active tasks belonging to a Clockify project'), and a concrete downstream use ('find the taskId for start_timer and log_time'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_time_entries, which return time entries rather than tasks.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to find taskId for start_timer and log_time, and states the prerequisite ('Requires a projectId from list_projects'). It doesn't list alternatives or exclusions, but the use-case and prerequisite make the intended usage clear.

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