task_list

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

The read-only behavior is already declared via annotations, but the description adds useful context beyond that: the output includes all Task Passports, and the current task is marked with an asterisk. This discloses behavior not present in the annotations and helps the agent anticipate the output format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, followed by usage guidance and the read-only note. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It names the fields returned, explains how to identify the current task, and states when to use it. No important information 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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional 'json' parameter with its own description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List all Task Passports with id, status, title, and branch.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Task Passports'), and includes the exact output fields. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the current task is marked with an asterisk and by referencing task_switch.

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 explicit usage context: 'Call to find a task id for task_switch or to review open work.' This gives a clear scenario for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternative list tools like task_status, but the guidance is strong enough for a list tool.

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