list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the search is always scoped to allowed projects and pagination is bounded. These are non-obvious guarantees an agent should know. It does not mention sort order or filtering exactness, but the additions are valuable and non-contradictory.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Search tasks') and then packs two high-value qualifiers (restricted to allowed projects, bounded pagination) with zero unnecessary words. The structure is exemplary for concise tool descriptions.

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 10-parameter search tool with no per-parameter descriptions, this one-sentence description is not enough. It omits details like query semantics, date format for deadline_before, pagination bounds, and how 'allowed projects' are determined. The output schema exists, but the input side is largely unexplained, making correct invocation uncertain.

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 0% for 10 parameters, so the description carries the burden of explaining them. It only hints at limit/offset through 'bounded pagination' and at project scoping through 'restricted to allowed projects'. No meaning is added for query, tag_id, stage_id, parent_task_id, deadline_before, assignee_user_id, or include_archived. This is insufficient given the large parameter surface.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search tasks') and adds scope ('always restricted to allowed projects, with bounded pagination'). This clearly identifies it as a multi-task query tool distinct from singular siblings like get_task or create_task. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it misses the top score.

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 this is the general task search/list endpoint, but it does not state when to use it versus alternatives such as get_project_board or get_task. 'Always restricted to allowed projects' is a behavioral constraint, not a usage recommendation. No explicit when/when-not language is present.

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