list_template_tasks

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact annotations do not cover: a hard 1000-result cap and the absence of cursor pagination. It does not say whether results are truncated or error at the limit, which would complete the picture.

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?

Two sentences: scope and cap first, pagination escape hatch second, endpoint third. Zero filler and correctly 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?

No output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description needs to be more self-sufficient. It covers scope, result cap, and alternatives, but leaves the return shape (what a task object contains) and the sort/order parameters unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. The endpoint path implies project_id and template_id, but 'sort' and 'order' are never mentioned — and 'sort' is a free-form string with no enum, so the schema offers no clue either. Half the parameters remain opaque.

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+resource ('List ... project tasks') and pins the scope with the endpoint path /project/{project_id}/templates/{template_id}/tasks, which is what actually tells an agent this is template-scoped. The phrase 'project tasks' is slightly at odds with the tool name list_template_tasks, but the endpoint disambiguates it.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_recent_tasks and list_recent_template_tasks when cursor pagination is needed, implying this tool is for flat up-to-1000 retrieval. No explicit when-not conditions beyond that, but the alternative routing is clear.

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