list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It notes returned data (watcher state, pending reasons) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, safe, or has any side effects. Given the 'list' naming, it is likely non-destructive, but this is not explicitly confirmed.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists key features. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but omits details on output format, pagination behavior (though 'limit' hints at it), ordering (recent), and differentiation from similar sibling tools. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 100% with clear descriptions for all four parameters (limit, status, repo_path, active_only). The high-level description adds context ('recent tasks', 'watcher state') but does not enhance individual parameter meanings beyond the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tasks with specific filters (status, repo, active) and includes watcher state and pending reasons. It distinguishes itself from siblings like `create_task` and `get_task_status` by focusing on listing multiple tasks with filtering. However, it could explicitly name common alternatives for clarity.

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 implies usage for retrieving filtered task lists but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other list-based siblings (e.g., `list_goals`, `search_workspace`, `audit_task`). It does not mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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