list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool returns ('list of actor tasks') without describing pagination behavior (implied by offset/limit parameters but not explained), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the list returns. For a list operation with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 that communicates the core purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the essential information ('Get list of actor tasks').

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 simple but undocumented behavioral profile, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'task' represents in this context (saved actor configurations), how results are structured, or any system constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and multiple similar siblings, more contextual information 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (offset and limit) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 'Get' and resource 'list of actor tasks' with clarification that these are 'saved actor configurations'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task' (singular) and 'list_task_runs' (executions rather than configurations). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar siblings like 'list_actors'.

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 use 'list_tasks' versus 'get_task' (for a specific task), 'list_actors' (for actor definitions), or 'list_task_runs' (for executions). No context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions is provided.

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