list_tasks

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses return content (task titles with IDs) and the custom_fields array, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, permissions, or error behavior, leaving notable gaps for a list 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?

Three sentences with the main action front-loaded. The second and third sentences add useful output/use-case detail without introducing fluff, though the final sentence overlaps somewhat with the second one.

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?

Given no output schema, the description partially addresses return values (titles, IDs, custom fields) and the tool's complexity is low (2 params, no nested objects). Missing pagination/details on response fields prevent a 5, but it is adequately complete for the intended lookup/search use cases.

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%, so the schema already documents both workspace_id and list_id. The description's 'optionally filtered by list' merely restates what the schema says, adding no new semantic detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List all tasks in a workspace, optionally filtered by list.' This clearly distinguishes it from get_task (singular retrieval), create/update/delete mutations, and list_lists (lists resource). No ambiguity about the tool's core operation.

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 clear use contexts: 'useful for finding task_id when users provide task names' and 'Can be used to search for tasks by filtering results in-memory by title/description.' It doesn't explicitly name when not to use it or point to alternatives, so a 5 is not warranted.

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