list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load; it does disclose the required auth scope, which is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the schema. It says nothing about whether the result set is paginated, capped, or ordered, and doesn't clarify what happens when both filters are omitted.

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?

A single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is appropriate, though the same brevity is what leaves the filter semantics unexplained.

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 two-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain filter behavior and result shape, and it does neither. Only the permission requirement is covered.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not — neither 'status' nor 'project_id' is mentioned. The agent must infer that status is a task-state name/code and that project_id scopes to a single project, with no hint about accepted string values.

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?

Specific verb and resource ("List tasks") plus the required permission scope, so an agent knows exactly what the call retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as list_projects or list_time_entries, though the noun 'tasks' is reasonably distinctive.

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 only guidance is the prerequisite permission ("needs read:tasks"); there is no statement of when to prefer this over sibling listing tools or how the optional filters change scope. Nothing tells the agent when not to call it.

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