task_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states it is a read operation ('List tasks'), but lacks details about pagination, limits, or whether it returns full task objects or summaries.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage context, third explains one parameter. No wasted words, but the third sentence could be integrated into the first.

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 no output schema and three optional parameters, the description omits details about return format, error behavior, or whether results are paginated. This leaves gaps for the agent.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by clarifying that 'query' is for free-text search and that filters are optional. However, it does not explain allowed values for 'status' or the format of 'repo_id'.

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 action (list) and resource (tasks), and mentions optional filters (status, repo, query). It is specific and distinct from siblings like task_create or task_delete, which are write operations.

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 provides a usage hint ('inspect project state before planning or mutating work'), which implies when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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