Consulter l'historique des tâches

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a display/show operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this shows all tasks or only recent ones, pagination behavior, format of returned data, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 - just two short sentences that get straight to the point. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds the filtering capability. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a single parameter with good schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'latest tasks' means (time range? count limit?), what information is displayed about each task, or how the results are structured. For a task history tool that presumably returns multiple task records, more context about the return format would be helpful.

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 mentions the single parameter: 'Peut être filtré par alias' (Can be filtered by alias). The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the alias parameter fully documented. The description adds minimal value beyond what's already in the schema, so the 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 clearly states what the tool does: 'Affiche les dernières tâches lancées' (Displays the latest launched tasks). It specifies the verb (display/show) and resource (tasks), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like task_logs or task_status, which likely provide different views of task information.

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 provides minimal guidance: 'Peut être filtré par alias' (Can be filtered by alias). It doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_logs (which might show detailed logs) or task_status (which might show current status). No explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendations are provided.

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