list_tasks

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the backend is dynamic (OPS_TASK_BACKEND) and that the return includes project and assignee names for readability. This provides useful context beyond the basic list operation, though it omits potential behavioral traits like rate limits or ordering.

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 concise (5 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose and filters. Every sentence adds value: use cases, parameter details, filter logic, return info, and backend note. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

With no annotations but an output schema present, the description explains the return includes project and assignee names, mentions the dynamic backend, and covers filter behavior. However, it does not address pagination, limit, or sorting, which are typical for list tools.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds rich semantics: project and assignee accept 'a name, a unique name fragment, or an id', and status must be exact enums 'todo, in_progress, or done'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of specificity, making parameters usable.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'List tasks, optionally narrowed by project, assignee, and/or status.' It then provides concrete use cases (e.g., 'what is on someone's plate') and mentions finding a task ID for updates, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task or update_task_status by focusing on reading.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this to answer what is on someone's plate, what work remains on a project, or to find a task's id before updating its status.' It also explains how filters combine (AND) and parameter formats. However, it does not contrast with siblings like list_projects or provide exclusion cases.

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