List tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'List tasks'. It does not mention result format, pagination, whether all tasks are returned, or whether the operation is a safe read; this is a meaningful gap for a listing operation.

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 entire description is a single sentence with no filler; the verb and resource are front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices behavioral context for brevity.

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 zero-parameter list operation, 'List tasks for the organization' is a minimum viable description: there are no inputs to specify. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not state what the returned task data looks like or any list limits, leaving moderate gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. Per the 0-parameter baseline, the lack of parameter details is acceptable and non-penalizing.

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 a specific action ('List') and resource ('tasks') with an organizational scope, which makes the basic purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling list tools because the resource is explicit. It does not, however, elaborate on whether this includes all task states or only active tasks.

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 choose list_tasks over alternatives like get_task, list_leads, or list_campaigns. There are no stated exclusions or conditions, so an agent must infer usage solely from the name.

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