list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavior. It explains the scoping logic and parameter filters but does not mention read-only nature, rate limits, or permission requirements. The behavior is adequately transparent for a list operation, though more could be said.

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 concise yet comprehensive. It starts with a clear summary, then conditional logic for API endpoints, followed by a well-organized list of parameters with their meanings. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers usage and parameter details well. It lacks description of the return format (list of task objects), but for a list endpoint this is often assumed. Overall, it provides enough context for correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It provides detailed semantics for all parameters: owner/repo scoping, state with enumerated values, is_archived, since (ISO 8601), sort/direction options, pagination, and note that creator_id is repo-scoped only. This adds significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 lists Copilot cloud-agent tasks and distinguishes between repo-scoped and global scope based on owner/repo presence. It also provides the API endpoints. This is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like get_task (single task) and create_task.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use repo-scoped vs global listing based on the 'owner' and 'repo' parameters. It also lists optional filter parameters. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool, the context of siblings like get_task or wait_for_task implies its listing purpose.

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