Base Wework List User Tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior, authentication requirements (access_token), or whether the results include only open tasks or all tasks, which are critical for an agent. The phrase 'tất cả các công việc' (all tasks) is ambiguous about status, and no info is given about the response structure or potential performance implications.

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 that effectively conveys the main purpose with a brief use case mention. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and includes valuable identifier support. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, without unnecessary fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema (which helps with return values) and 3 parameters, but the description does not clarify pagination, authentication, or how the 'user' parameter is parsed. The description is adequate for the purpose, but for a list operation that likely returns large datasets, missing pagination and authentication details are significant gaps given the lack of 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions the 'user' parameter supports @username, user_id, or email, which adds value for that parameter. However, 'page' and 'access_token' parameters are not explained at all in the description, leaving them ambiguous despite having some schema type info but no description.

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 verb ('Lấy danh sách' - list), the resource ('tất cả các công việc được giao cho một nhân viên/dev cụ thể' - all tasks assigned to a specific user), and the supported identifiers. It distinguishes from siblings like base_wework_list_tasks_by_project by specifying per-user scoping. The use case (Daily Standup preparation) further clarifies intent.

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?

The description explicitly mentions it is useful for Daily Standup reports and summarizing work done/pending, giving clear contexts for use. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool vs alternatives like list_tasks_by_project, but the user-centric focus is clear enough for agents to infer the difference.

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