list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing. It never states that this is a read-only operation, how pagination behaves despite page/per_page parameters, or what the default filter ('open') means for results.

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 padding, so it is structurally clean. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, but as written every word earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is the only source of behavioral information and it is nearly empty. An agent cannot learn pagination, defaults, or result scope from it.

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 all three parameters are undocumented in the schema, and the description only gestures at filtering without explaining the enum values, the 'open' default, or page/per_page semantics. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 phrase 'List tasks' names a clear verb and resource, but 'optionally filtered' is vague and adds nothing an agent couldn't infer. It makes no attempt to distinguish this from siblings like list_appointments, list_leads, or create_task/update_task.

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?

'Optionally filtered' weakly implies you can narrow results, but there is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to reach for this versus search or list_views, and no exclusions. An agent gets no routing help from the description.

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