list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool lists tasks and can be filtered, but does not mention any behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, pagination defaults, or scope (e.g., tasks in current workspace).

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 at five words, front-loading the purpose. However, it is almost too terse; adding a bit more context (e.g., scope or default behavior) would improve clarity without harming conciseness.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description lacks essential context such as the default status filter (defaults to 'open'), scope of tasks, and the relationship between parameters. The description is incomplete for a tool with six optional parameters and no annotations.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely mentions optional filtering. The parameter descriptions in the schema are self-sufficient.

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 explicitly states the action ('List') and the resource ('tasks'), which is clear. It also mentions optional filtering. However, it does not distinguish 'list_tasks' from sibling tools like 'list_governance_events' or 'list_reports', which also list entities.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as 'read_task' (single task retrieval) or 'inspect_task' (detailed view). The description does not provide context for when filtering is appropriate or how it relates to other list operations.

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