tasklist_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the lightweight response shape when using since_version ('{unchanged: true, version}') and describes the scope of data returned. It does not cover auth requirements or error conditions, but for a read operation this is quite transparent.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence followed by actionable usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler or repetition.

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 presence of an output schema (which likely details the response structure), the description focuses on the critical usage patterns: full read vs. cheap poll. It also includes context about when to poll (tool boundaries) and what the user actions might affect. This is comprehensive for a read/list tool.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaningful context for since_version, explaining its purpose and the response optimization, which goes beyond the schema's 'The version you last saw.' It does not add extra meaning for project, but that is adequately described in the schema.

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 starts with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Read a task board's full list' and enumerates the contents ('every task with its status, assignee, lock, and note thread'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tasklist_summary, which likely provides a condensed view.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Read this at session start, and re-poll it at tool boundaries' and explains why. It also gives guidance on the since_version parameter for efficient polling. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., tasklist_summary), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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