teamleader_list_tasks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this is a read-only listing operation and that filtering and pagination are available, which are useful behavioral facts. However, it does not disclose response shape, default pagination behavior, potential scope limitations, or whether any side effects occur.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action, the resource, the platform, and the main optional capabilities without redundancy.

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 simple list tool with five optional parameters, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient to invoke it correctly. However, the absence of an output schema and the lack of any return-format or filtering-combination guidance leaves some uncertainty. A slightly richer description mentioning that this is for batch retrieval while teamleader_get_task is for a single task would make it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and all five parameters already have descriptive text covering meanings, defaults, and enum constraints. The description adds only a generic 'optional filtering and pagination' statement, which does not materially enhance what the schema already provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List'), a clear resource ('tasks'), and the domain ('Teamleader Focus'), so an agent can tell this apart from task mutation tools like teamleader_create_task or teamleader_update_task. It also signals filtering and pagination capabilities. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling list tools or clarify whether it returns all tasks or a scoped subset.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention using teamleader_get_task for a single task, nor does it note any relationship to other task tools such as teamleader_list_notes or teamleader_get_task. 'Optional filtering and pagination' implies use cases but does not state them explicitly.

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