taiga_tasks_list

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states the action and optional filters, without mentioning return format, pagination, default sorting, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly confirmed.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence with no wasted words. It would benefit from a brief expansion to explain the listing scope, but it is structurally clean and front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity (16 interchangeable filters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain whether a project scope is required, how results are paginated, or what fields are returned. This gap would leave an agent uncertain about invocation expectations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 56%, with many parameters lacking descriptions (e.g., order_by, exclude_*). The description's phrase 'optional filters' adds no semantic detail about how each filter behaves or which are mutually exclusive. The schema itself provides partial information, but the description fails to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'tasks', distinguishing it from sibling tools like taiga_epics_list or taiga_userstories_list. However, it lacks specifics about the listing scope (e.g., project-wide or global) and does not mention any constraints, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as taiga_tasks_get for single-task retrieval or taiga_userstories_list for user stories. The description gives no context on typical use cases or exclusions.

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