List tasks

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions 'project priority order' as a behavioral detail. It does not disclose whether completed tasks are included by default, how pagination behaves (beyond schema parameter descriptions), what fields are returned, or any permissions/context. This is a significant gap for a listing operation.

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 a single concise sentence that directly states the purpose and a key behavioral nuance. Every word adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specifying. It doesn't explain what the response contains, whether completed tasks are returned by default, or how to use completed_since for filtering. The agent would have to rely heavily on the schema and make assumptions about the default 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?

The input schema provides descriptive text for all 5 parameters (limit, offset, opt_fields, project_gid, completed_since), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 'List tasks in an Asana project in project priority order' clearly specifies the action, resource, project scope, and an ordering detail. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_sections and search_tasks by focusing specifically on project-based task listing.

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 context of when to use the tool is implied by the description (when you need tasks from a specific project), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternatives (e.g., search_tasks, get_task) to choose instead. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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