list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Query' implies a safe read, but it never confirms read-only semantics, says nothing about pagination, result ordering, or the default limit of 50 that the schema itself only partially exposes. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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 no filler; the core action precedes the optional modifiers. Nothing in it is redundant or wasted.

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?

This is a simple read tool with all three parameters documented in the schema and no output schema to explain, so the bar is modest. Still missing is anything about default limit behavior, pagination, or result ordering, which matters for a listing tool an agent may call repeatedly.

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 every parameter (limit, status, agent_id) is already documented in the schema, including the accepted status values. The description names two of the three filters but adds no format, syntax, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Query') and resource ('tasks from the board'), which clearly reads as a read/list operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_task or get_board_status, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous enough that an agent can place it among siblings.

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?

'with optional filtering by status and agent' implies the tool is for browsing/filtering a task collection, which implicitly contrasts with single-task retrieval via get_task. However, it never states when to use this over get_task or get_board_status, and there are no exclusions or prerequisite conditions.

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