list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own - no pagination/limit behavior, no indication of how many tasks come back, no auth or scope notes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but also nearly zero content - for a tool with two parameters and several overlapping siblings, this is terse to the point of being under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. It omits return format, result limits, and how it relates to sibling listing/search tools, which an agent would want before choosing it.

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%, so both parameters (list and status, including the enum values) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, which is the baseline 3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear verb+resource (list tasks) and scopes it to a given list, so the agent knows exactly what operation this is. However, it does nothing to differentiate from siblings like search_tasks, get_today_tasks, or get_my_day, which also return 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_tasks (filtered search) or get_today_tasks/get_my_day (special views). The only implied usage comes from the schema default of the '任务' list, which the description never mentions.

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