task_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: it stores metadata only, never launches an agent, and results are isolated per project_path. It doesn't cover the limit cap of 200 or ordering of results, which would have made it a 5.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the use condition, then the behavioral constraint, then the scoping rule. Nothing is redundant or padding.

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 read-only filtered list with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and scoping adequately. A brief note on what the returned task records contain, or that the limit defaults to something below 200, would close the remaining gap.

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 100%, so all six parameters including filters and the limit are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces project_path isolation but adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (tasks) and the operation (list) and scopes it to persistent work tracked across Codex sessions. It also explicitly excludes agent execution, which separates it from task_create/task_assign-style siblings, though it does not name task_summary or task_status as alternatives.

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?

"Use when tracking persistent work across Codex sessions" gives a clear triggering context, and the note that it does not start or execute an agent tells the agent one thing this tool is not for. No sibling is named as the preferred alternative when the goal is a single task lookup or a summary.

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