list_google_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. It mentions that status and ID are included, but omits key behavioral details such as the default filtering (show_completed defaults to false, meaning completed tasks are excluded by default) and any other behavior like ordering or pagination. This is a significant gap for an unannotated read tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and there is no wasted content. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with one optional parameter.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, the description is incomplete because it does not explain the default behavior of show_completed, which is central to what tasks are returned. While an output schema exists, it does not cover the filtering semantics. The description should at least mention that only incomplete tasks are listed unless show_completed is enabled.

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% since the description does not mention show_completed. The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema, and with low coverage, the description is expected to compensate. It fails to do so, leaving the parameter's effect on behavior undocumented in the narrative.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('tasks from the primary task list'), and distinguishes this tool from sibling mutating tools like add_google_task, complete_google_task, and delete_google_task. It also hints at output fields (status and ID), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 read-only usage by saying 'Lists', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions (e.g., tasks from other lists). No guidance is given about the show_completed parameter. The intended use case is implied, not explicitly stated.

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