list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that container and completed tasks are filtered by default, but the claim that completed tasks are 'filtered out by default' directly conflicts with the schema's include_completed 'Defaults to true', leaving the actual default ambiguous.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the filtering defaults following. Nothing is padded, though the second sentence could be shorter given the schema already documents both include_* flags.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description need not explain return values. Combined with 100% schema coverage on all six optional parameters, the definition is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly.

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% (6/6 params documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as whether 'project' accepts name, code or id, or what happens when project is omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the tasks of a project') and adds the domain rationale that tasks are what time is logged against, which separates it from list_projects and get_task. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

Implies usage by explaining the filtering defaults (containers/completed excluded), which tells the agent this is the default listing surface. However, it never says when to prefer get_task or list_projects, and gives no exclusion guidance for the include_* flags.

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