task.list

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

The description's use of '조회' (query) implies a read-only operation, which is a key behavioral trait. However, with no annotations and no mention of pagination, ordering, or any potential side effects, the transparency is limited. It adds some value but leaves much to be inferred.

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 exceptionally concise, using two short sentences to convey the core function and a key feature. It is front-loaded and free of any unnecessary words or repetition.

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 tool with only two parameters, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits mention of the limit parameter, default behavior, or return format. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description could provide more context to fully inform an agent.

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 input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (limit and status), and the tool description merely restates the status filtering capability without adding new meaning. No additional semantics for the limit parameter are introduced, so it stays at the baseline.

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 it queries the task list ('Task 목록을 조회합니다') and mentions filtering by status, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like task.get (single retrieval) and task.stats (statistical view). The verb and resource are specific and 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?

It is implied that this tool should be used to list tasks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like task.get or task.stats. No exclusions or contextual criteria are provided, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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