task_list

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds little behavioral context. It does not mention pagination behavior (limit parameter), ordering, or any effects of calling the tool. The description merely restates the purpose without deepening transparency.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is compact and efficient. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover parameter semantics without losing conciseness.

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 that the tool has 3 parameters (one required, two optional with defaults) and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is insufficient. The output schema exists, but the input semantics are under-explained. A more complete description would elaborate on the parameters and their effect on results.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must add meaning to parameters. It only hints at the 'status' filter ('by status') but fails to explain the 'limit' or 'projectId' parameters, their defaults, or constraints. This leaves the agent guessing about valid values and defaults.

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 the action (List), resource (persistent tasks), and filter (by status). It distinguishes from sibling tools like task_complete or task_start by specifying listing functionality. However, it could be more precise by mentioning that it lists tasks for a specific project.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as task_complete, task_checkpoint, or project_list. The description does not specify that it is read-only, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for use.

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