Voir la file d'attente 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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'avec des rappels pour les tâches longues' (with reminders for long tasks), which adds some behavioral context about handling long-running tasks. However, it lacks details on output format, pagination, real-time updates, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a tool that likely returns dynamic data.

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, efficient sentence in French that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and adds a brief behavioral note, with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 the complexity of task queue monitoring and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'statut' includes (e.g., pending, running, failed), how reminders for long tasks work, or the return structure, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary details.

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 tool's purpose: 'Affiche le statut de toutes les tâches' (Displays the status of all tasks) with the specific verb 'affiche' (displays) and resource 'tâches' (tasks). It distinguishes from siblings like 'task_status' (which likely shows status of a single task) by specifying 'toutes' (all), but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'queue_stats' (which might show queue metrics rather than task status).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'task_queue' over 'task_status' (for individual tasks), 'task_history' (for past tasks), or 'queue_stats' (for queue metrics), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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