taskhub_tasks_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-detection of projectId, which is a valuable behavioral detail. However, it doesn't mention pagination defaults, result ordering, or whether only top-level tasks are returned, leaving some behavior opaque.

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 with the core action front-loaded. The auto-detection note is valuable and placed after the primary statement. No wasted words.

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 read-only listing tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't describe the return structure (no output schema), clarify how pagination interacts with filters, or distinguish from the related taskhub_tasks_my/daily tools. Given no annotations and no output schema, more context would help an agent choose and invoke it correctly.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including defaults and auto-detection behavior. The description merely restates filter categories without adding new semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 clear verb and resource ('List tasks with filters'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like taskhub_tasks_my or taskhub_tasks_daily, but the filter-centric description makes its role distinct enough.

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?

Provides a useful contextual note about projectId auto-detection from the current directory, but doesn't state when to prefer this tool over taskhub_tasks_my/taskhub_tasks_daily or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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