List overseer tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the ordering is newest first, the origin field distinguishes agent-started vs user-started tasks, and it explicitly warns to clean up only your own tasks. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('List running and completed overseer.nvim tasks') and immediately provide ordering and fields. The second sentence adds essential origin semantics without any filler.

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 zero-parameter list operation with a read-only annotation, the description is fully sufficient. It names the returned fields, ordering, origin semantics, and cleanup guidance, covering what an agent needs to use the tool correctly despite the lack of an output schema.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the description is not required to explain parameters. It correctly focuses on behavior rather than parameter details, meeting the baseline for no-parameter tools.

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 running and completed overseer.nvim tasks with id, name, and status, newest first. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like overseer_run, overseer_stop, and overseer_list_templates.

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 implies when to use this tool: to inspect tasks and determine which ones the agent owns before cleanup, as indicated by 'only clean up your own.' It gives useful context about origin values but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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