qobrix_list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return envelope ({ data, pagination }), the expandable associations, and the canonical search patterns. It does not explicitly state read-only operation, but as a list tool, that is clear from context; it also doesn't mention auth or rate limits, but these are likely shared across the API.

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 lengthy but well-structured: purpose first, then return shape, includes, and canonical patterns. It front-loads the main verb. Some promotional phrasing ('operational backbone of all canonical workflows') could be trimmed, but the content is relevant and organized.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by spelling out the response shape and the list of includable associations. The canonical patterns cover the most likely agent scenarios. It is complete enough for a list tool with a rich schema.

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 input schema already describes all five parameters with 100% coverage, including detailed grammar and defaults. The description adds canonical usage examples for the search parameter but does not explain any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Per the guidelines, this is a 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 opens with 'List tasks' and immediately frames it as the operational backbone of canonical workflows, making the verb and resource clear. However, it never distinguishes this tool from sibling qobrix_search_tasks, even though the search parameter overlaps with a search tool's job. The canonical patterns do clarify core use cases.

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 four canonical patterns (My open tasks, Overdue, Tasks for a lead, Listing checklist) with concrete search expressions, showing exactly when to reach for this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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