task_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the current task is marked with an asterisk, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or if any side effects occur, missing transparency about permissions or safety.

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 concise with a single sentence that packs key information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing the parameter) without sacrificing brevity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and a notable behavior (asterisk marker). It lacks explanation of the json parameter, but overall it is fairly complete for an agent to understand the tool's primary function.

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?

There is one parameter 'json' of type boolean, but the description does not mention it at all. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it fails to add any meaning beyond the schema's minimal information.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'Task Passports', and the specific fields included (id, status, title, branch). It also mentions the special marking of the current task with an asterisk, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like task_status.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings such as task_status (which likely shows current task only) or task_audit, there is no context provided for when to choose task_list over them.

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