List Tasks

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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description's added sentence is an internal API-endpoint note (task_queue vs task_management) rather than agent-facing behavior such as pagination, filtering, or return shape, so it adds little beyond the annotation.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The second sentence is terse and somewhat cryptic, but it is compact and does not bloat the definition.

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?

An output schema exists and no parameters are needed, so the description need not explain returns or inputs. It is minimally adequate, but it omits any guidance on ordering, scope, or how the task list relates to retry/abort operations.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing about inputs, since none exist.

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 gives a clear verb+resource: "列出任务管理中的任务" (list tasks in task management). It does not, however, differentiate this tool from its obvious siblings retry_task and abort_task, which also operate on tasks.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is offered — nothing says when to list tasks versus retrying or aborting one, nor what prerequisite state must exist. The second sentence is an implementation quirk, not usage guidance.

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