List tasks

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so safety needs no restating. The description still adds real context beyond them: result ordering, the fields surfaced per task (including whether workers are running), and a next_cursor for pagination.

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 short sentences with the filter scope front-loaded and the sibling pointer following immediately. The final "Returns structuredContent {tasks:[...], next_cursor}" sentence partly duplicates the output schema, which is the only slack in an otherwise tight 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?

With a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the only burden on the description is scope and routing, both of which are handled. The explicit return-shape sentence is redundant given the output schema, but nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents limit, cursor, search, status, record_id and response_format in depth, including the enum meanings and search-symbol caveats. The description restates the filter intent (one record, one status, matching text) but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Lists tasks") plus default ordering ("newest first") and the three filters it supports. It explicitly contrasts itself with heliyos_tasks_get, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

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?

It names a concrete alternative and the dimension on which it differs: use heliyos_tasks_get when you need the description and links. That is clear routing guidance for the sibling an agent is most likely to confuse with this one, though it gives no guidance for other siblings such as tasks_events or tasks_run.

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