memory_tasks_tool

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

Despite lacking annotations, the verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation with no destructive side effects. The description does not mention authentication or other behavioral details, but the operation type is transparent enough for a safe read.

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 extremely concise and well-structured, with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear parameter list. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 list operation with two self-explanatory parameters, the description is complete. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the purpose is clear and the expected return (a list of memories) is inferable.

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 description explicitly explains both parameters: 'limit' is defined as the maximum number of items to return with a default, and 'project' is described as an optional project root path with auto-detection behavior. This exceeds the minimal schema information.

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 clearly states the action (List), the resource (task memories), and the specific filter (tagged with task:*), making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like memory_list_tool or memory_recent_tool.

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 does not mention relationships to sibling tools such as memory_search_tool or memory_recent_tool, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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