taiga_list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'List tasks with optional filters' and does not mention pagination behavior (page/page_size), how filters combine, or any authentication/permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with seven parameters.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'List'. Every word is relevant, but it is too sparse to be considered exceptionally helpful as a standalone description. It earns a 4 for efficiency, though not a 5 because it lacks additional useful structure.

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?

With 7 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain return values, pagination behavior, or how filters interact. A more complete description would mention that results are paginated using page/page_size and can be filtered by project, status, assignee, etc., making it comparable to tools with richer documentation.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 7 optional parameters, so the schema already documents each filter (e.g., project_id, status, assigned_to). The description adds only the general notion of 'optional filters' without specifics, providing no additional meaning beyond the schema, which justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 'List tasks with optional filters', providing a specific verb (list) and resource (tasks), which distinguishes it from sibling operations like taiga_get_task, taiga_create_task, and taiga_delete_task. However, it lacks detail on the scope (e.g., all tasks or within a specific project), though the optional filters imply applicability.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as taiga_get_task for a single task or taiga_list_issues for other work items. It does not state the intended use case, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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