hb_state_task_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire behavioral burden. It does not disclose default behavior when status is omitted (does it default to 'all'?), pagination, ordering, or return shape. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single terse phrase, front-loaded with the verb and resource and nothing wasted. It is efficient, though the fragmentary style leaves room for a useful clause or two about defaults.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the minimum viable information is present. It still lacks the default-status behavior and any hint of the result set, which an agent calling it blind would want to know.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description restates the status filter (already in the schema with a full enum) and omits mention of the agent_id filter entirely, adding no meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 tasks') plus a scope qualifier, so an agent immediately knows this is a read-only enumeration of tasks. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling task tools (hb_state_task_create, hb_state_task_update, hb_state_dispatch), which the description never mentions.

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 phrase 'with optional status filter' implies the filters exist but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tools to consider. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the right choice over hb_state_task_create or hb_state_task_update.

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