list_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 indicates a read/list operation but does not explain default filtering, pagination limits, hidden-task behavior, or what the response contains. The unsupported 'search query' mention also risks misleading an agent into passing a nonexistent parameter.

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 short and front-loaded with the main purpose, which is good. But the final clause about a search query is inaccurate and not supported by the schema, so the single sentence does not fully earn its place.

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?

The tool has five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the primary guidance. It omits useful invocation context such as defaults, response shape, or how to obtain a valid tasklist_id, and it references a filter that is not in the schema. The description is not sufficient for reliable tool selection and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds a 'search query' filter that does not exist in the input schema, which is actively misleading rather than additive. It contributes no useful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'List tasks in a task list.' It is distinguishable from siblings like get_task and list_task_lists. However, mentioning 'search query' when no query parameter exists in the schema introduces ambiguity and mildly undermines clarity.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_task or list_task_lists. 'Optionally filter by status or search query' implies a filtering use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons, and the query mention is not backed by the schema.

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