List tasks on a project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds the functional output (task_id + name) and the prerequisite for time logging, but does not disclose other behaviors like pagination, filtering, or whether it returns all tasks. This is acceptable for a simple read-only tool but not exceptionally informative.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource. The first sentence states the action and output; the second sentence provides essential context for its use. No redundant information 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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It explains the practical purpose (getting a task_id for time logging) and is therefore sufficiently complete for this complexity level. Minor missing details like scope or limitations are not critical here.

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 covers 100% of the parameter details: project_id is a required number with a clear description ('The Harvest project id'). The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides full clarity, so a baseline score 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 lists task assignments for a project, specifying the exact fields returned (task_id + name). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on tasks rather than time entries or projects, and connects to the workflow of needing a task_id before logging time or starting a timer.

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 explains when this tool is needed ('to log time or start a timer on that project'), which directly guides the agent to use it before invoking log_time or start_timer. It does not explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the context is clear enough for a simple list operation.

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