list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool lists tasks with optional filtering, implying a read operation, but omits details like pagination, sorting, or default scope (e.g., whether it returns all tasks or only those assigned to the current user). This is a notable gap for a list tool.

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 brief, with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a short AI-assistance note. The second sentence is somewhat vague and could be considered filler, but it does add a use-case context without significant bloat.

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?

The tool has 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain pagination, return shape, or what the default result set looks like. While the schema covers parameters, the description fails to provide essential context for a list operation, making it incomplete for real-world usage.

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 8 parameters (tags, search, dueAfter, groupIds, etc.). The description only adds 'optional filtering' as a general statement and does not enrich parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 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 opens with 'List tasks with optional filtering,' which clearly states the verb, resource, and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_task, though 'list' inherently contrasts with single-task retrieval.

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 says the AI should use this to 'understand current workload, find related tasks, and provide context-aware assistance,' giving a general use case. However, it does not name alternatives or specify when not to use it, relying on weak implied context rather than explicit guidance.

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