task_list

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

The description declares the tool as 'Read-only,' which is important for behavioral transparency given no annotations. It also details the output format (fields and asterisk), but does not mention any potential side effects or limits, which are minimal.

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-loading the key purpose and then adding usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is complete: it states what is returned, when to use it, and that it is read-only. No output schema is needed given the description covers the return fields.

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 only parameter 'json' is described in the schema as 'Return structured JSON instead of formatted text.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. With 100% coverage, 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 explicitly states the tool lists task passports with specific fields (id, status, title, branch) and marks the current task. It distinguishes itself from siblings like task_switch by noting its use for finding task IDs for switching.

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 usage context: 'Call to find a task id for task_switch or to review open work.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of siblings implies alternatives.

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