list_tasks

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses filtering, search, and limit behavior. While it doesn't mention side effects (none expected as read-only), it could state that it is safe and non-destructive. Still, the provided info is sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. Front-loaded with key purpose, then usage guidance. Every word earns 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?

No output schema, so description should describe return format. It only hints at 'task progress' but doesn't specify fields returned (e.g., id, status, title). For a list tool, this omission makes it slightly incomplete. However, sibling tools like get_task might fill in, so it's passable.

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 coverage is 100%, but description adds value by explaining the use cases for each status value and the nature of the q parameter (case-insensitive substring search). This goes beyond the schema's dry descriptions.

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 'List this agent's tasks, filtered by status' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming get_pending_reviews and get_task, showing when to use each.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use status='open'/'claimed' for monitoring, prefer get_pending_reviews for proof review queue, and call get_task for full details. This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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