ds_list_task_instances

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains that include_full returns full taskParams/SQL/script and consumes more tokens, and that state can be an empty filter. It also details the return structure. However, it does not explicitly mention that this is a read-only operation or describe potential error conditions, though the 'list' verb implies non-destructive behavior.

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 well-structured with a summary sentence, a version note, and clearly labeled Args/Returns sections. It is moderately sized and front-loaded. The version note adds a slight redundancy but overall every sentence provides useful 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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values, parameter behavior, and usage context. It is complete for a list operation, covering both basic and full detail modes. The troubleshooting hint adds valuable context for the AI agent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. The Args section explicitly describes each parameter, including state's allowed values and empty behavior, include_full's token impact, and the required identifiers. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 tool lists task instances for a process instance, with optional state filtering and full details. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like ds_list_process_instances (which lists process instances) and ds_get_task_detail (which fetches a single task).

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?

The description provides clear context: it is for listing task instances within a process instance, with state filtering and an optional include_full parameter for detailed troubleshooting. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the version note and parameter explanations imply when to use the toggle. This is strong but not explicit about exclusions.

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