list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the return format (JSON list) and lists accepted filter values, which is good. However, it does not explicitly state that listing has no side effects, nor does it mention pagination or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 tightly structured with 'Args', 'Returns', and 'Example' sections. Every sentence provides value, and there is no redundant or extraneous text. It is concise yet complete.

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 list operation with two optional params and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filter options, return format, and an example. It does not go deeper (e.g., auth or pagination), but the low complexity and existing output schema make this sufficient.

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 description compensates for the schema's generic string type by providing exact allowed values for status (pending, running, completed, failed, cancelled) and a concrete example for task_type (clone_catalog). It also implies that filtering is optional and omitting returns all tasks. This goes beyond the schema's bare definitions.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' and explicitly states the resource 'all background tasks for the current user', with optional filters. This clearly distinguishes it from get_task_status (which presumably returns a single task). The scope is unambiguous.

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 clearly indicates this is for listing background tasks with optional status/type filters, and provides an example. It does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives, but the context is straightforward and no exclusions are needed.

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