Base Wework List Tasks By Project

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and basic capabilities (time filter, pagination) but omits critical details such as authentication requirements (access_token parameter), error handling for invalid project IDs, whether results are sorted, or any side effects. For a read operation, the lack of these details is a significant gap.

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 a single concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it lacks any structural elements like bullet points or explicit scoping, and the key capability of time filtering is mentioned only implicitly. It is short but not well-structured for an agent to quickly extract usage details.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description should provide more context. It fails to explain the meaning of optional parameters, the required id, the output format (though schema exists), or any prerequisites. The minimal description leaves the agent with many unknowns when attempting to call the tool 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It mentions 'time filter' and 'pagination' but does not map these to specific parameters like created_from, updated_from, page, limit, or clarify the meaning of metatype. The description adds little beyond the raw parameter names in the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing all tasks in a project, with time filtering and pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like base_wework_get_task (single task) and base_wework_list_user_tasks (tasks for a user). The verb 'get list' and resource 'tasks in a project' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it is the appropriate choice for retrieving tasks for a specific project, nor does it contrast with related tools like list_user_tasks or get_task. The agent must infer usage from the name and description.

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