list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavior: 'Archived history is excluded by default'. However, it does not mention other behaviors, such as whether the operation is read-only, sorting order, or performance considerations.

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 sentence that concisely conveys the tool's purpose, key filters, and default behavior (exclude archived). No wasted words; all information is front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description gives some hint of return fields (watcher state, pending reasons) but lacks details on ordering, pagination, or the full shape of the response. It's adequate for a list tool with 5 well-documented parameters.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by referencing the filter parameters (status/repo/active/history) and mentioning computed fields (watcher state, pending reasons) that are not in the schema, enriching understanding of what the tool returns.

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 the tool lists recent tasks with specific filters (status, repo, active, history) and mentions additional derived fields (watcher state, pending reasons). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task_status (single task) and get_task_lineage (history) by focusing on filtering a list.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context like prerequisites or common patterns. For example, it doesn't say 'For a single task's status, use get_task_status'.

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