List tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine behavioral context by explaining that tasks are markdown checkboxes including custom states, which tells the agent how matching works. It does not disclose return ordering, grouping by page, or pagination behavior, so it is additive but incomplete.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical clarifying task syntax is the only elaboration and it earns its place by defining the resource precisely.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema and mostly documented parameters, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is whether results are grouped or ordered, which an agent would want when presenting many tasks.

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 coverage is 75%, so the schema documents most parameters (prefix, contains, include_system); the description's 'across the space' reinforces that the default scope is unrestricted, hinting at the prefix/include_system defaults. It adds no detail on the status enum or the accent-insensitive contains matching, but the schema already carries that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List markdown tasks') and defines what counts as a task via the checkbox syntax '- [ ] / - [x] / custom states', which distinguishes it from sibling listing tools like list_pages and list_tags. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search or page_outline for narrower task lookups. The only contextual hint is the scope phrase 'across the space', which implies a space-wide scan but says nothing about when that is preferable to a page-scoped read.

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