list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output format (status signs, id, title, body indicator) and the todo parameter effect. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior but strongly implies it through 'list' and lack of side-effect cues.

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 well-structured with clear sections for format, status signs, and argument. It is slightly verbose due to the full format spec, but every sentence adds value, making it appropriate for the task.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only listing), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, output structure, filter option, and visual indicators. An output schema exists, but the text provides complementary context about sign meanings and body indicator.

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 single parameter 'todo' has 0% schema description coverage, yet the tool description fully explains its semantics: 'If True, list only tasks from the TODO list.' This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema's bare boolean type.

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 clearly states 'List root tasks as compact lines' with specific format details, identifying the verb (list) and resource (root tasks). It distinguishes from siblings like create_task or edit_task by focusing on listing, not mutation.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as view_tasks (a sibling). It implies usage for compact listing but offers no exclusions or comparisons, leaving the agent without decision-making context.

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