skill_tasks_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (listing) but does not confirm idempotency, disclose pagination behavior beyond what the schema states, or mention whether results are sorted by time or any other ordering. Without annotation context, the description leaves important behavioral aspects undocumented.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and lists relevant statuses. Every word adds value with no redundancy or 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?

Given the moderate complexity of a listing tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states the core purpose. However, it lacks guidance on result ordering, the meaning of offset vs. cursor-based pagination, and what fields are returned for each task. Without this, completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces the 'status' parameter by listing example values (completed, failed, running, paused) but omits the 'cancelled' and 'paused_for_llm' options from the schema. It does not add any new meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 lists skill execution logs (task history) and enumerates the statuses included (completed, failed, running, paused). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'skill_tasks_pending' (which likely only shows pending tasks) and 'skill_schedule_list' (which lists schedules, not execution logs).

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 (e.g., skill_tasks_pending, skill_schedule_list). It does not explain the relationship between task history and pending tasks, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., skill must exist) or ordering considerations.

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