list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' appropriately implies a read-only operation, and 'optionally filtered by status' conveys filtering behavior. However, it does not mention potential limitations such as pagination, ordering, permission requirements, or behavior with invalid status values, so transparency remains minimal.

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 sentence with no redundant words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It states the core action and optional filter concisely, earning its place with zero waste.

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 filtered-list tool, the description covers the essential calling context: projectId and optional status. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits return format and any behavioral caveats, leaving some room for ambiguity though not severely.

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%, with both parameters already documented including status value examples. The description reinforces that status is optional but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'tasks' and the scope 'in a project,' clearly distinguishing it from get_task (single task) and list_projects (project list). The optional status filter adds useful behavioral detail. This is a strong, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving multiple tasks within a project, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over get_task or other task-related tools. No alternatives are named and no exclusions are given, leaving usage guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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