list_research_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral detail the annotations cannot carry: 'A private task is a redacted stub,' which tells the agent results can be partially hidden, plus the view-ordering guarantee. It does not discuss result size or 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, zero filler. The scope/fields statement comes first, then ordering, then the sibling exclusion and privacy caveat – well front-loaded and every sentence carries information.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and all four parameters are covered by the schema. The only gap is that nothing is said about result volume/pagination for a tool that lists a whole view, though the filtering params mitigate that.

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% – tag, status, attributes and include_private are each documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description adds no filtering syntax or semantics of its own; the indirect link between 'private task is a redacted stub' and include_private is only implied. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('research tasks') and enumerates the fields returned ('title, status, priority, tags, attributes and description'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It also distinguishes itself from the similarly-named sibling: 'Not background jobs (list_jobs).'

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?

Explicitly rules out the most likely confusion point by naming list_jobs, and notes the ordering follows the Tasks view (Open, In Progress, Blocked, Done). It gives clear context but no positive 'use this when...' statement or guidance on combining the filters.

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