list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states it lists tasks, with no mention of side effects, permissions, or return format. The 'To mark done' sentence even suggests a mutating behavior not actually present, adding confusion.

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 brief, but the second sentence about marking done is off-topic and doesn't belong in a list tool's description. It would be more concise if limited to listing behavior and filtering guidance.

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 20 parameters and no output schema, yet the description doesn't explain the returned structure, default pagination behavior, or how filters combine. It also omits any mention of alternatives like get_task for single-task lookup, leaving the tool under-specified for an 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent to resolve IDs via getter tools (e.g., 'Use get_users/get_statuses/get_priorities/get_problem_types first to find IDs'), which clarifies how to populate filter fields like status_id and priority_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 tool's function: 'List tasks with pagination, search, and filters.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task (single task) and create/update/delete.

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?

It advises using get_users/get_statuses/get_priorities/get_problem_types first to find IDs, which is useful context for filtering. However, it includes an unrelated instruction about marking tasks done ('To mark done: set status_id to the Completed status ID and percentage to 100'), which belongs to update_task or mark_task_done and could mislead an agent into thinking list_tasks can modify tasks.

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