list_global_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of result volume, pagination, or what a global-scope listing includes, and "GET /tasks" merely echoes the readOnly annotation.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, but the second sentence ("GET /tasks") is redundant with the first and neither sentence carries substantive information. Brevity here comes at the cost of usefulness rather than from efficiency.

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?

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is the only place an agent could learn the return shape and how the global task list differs from sibling listings. It provides none of that, leaving the agent to guess scope and result size.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The empty schema is unambiguous and the description cannot contradict it.

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?

"Get Tasks. GET /tasks." largely restates the tool name and repeats the same idea twice as a REST path. It never says what scope of tasks (global vs. project vs. cluster) is returned, so an agent cannot tell it apart from list_tasks, list_recent_tasks, or list_cluster_tasks.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over the several sibling list/get task tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of filtering or ordering assumptions.

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