List covered tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context by stating the tool lists 'every' task and specifying the output fields. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it, though it does not disclose pagination or result format details.

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 two sentences with a front-loaded verb 'List,' followed by the key output fields and a clear usage directive. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no redundant or filler content.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description fully covers what it does, what it returns, and when to call it. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the described fields are sufficient for the agent's needs.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is empty. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none to describe.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'every task in the Cost of Work Index' and enumerates the returned fields (task id, unit, AI employee). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task_cost or estimate_annual_cost, which focus on cost calculations rather than listing tasks.

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 says 'Call this first when you do not already know the task id you need,' providing a clear condition for use. It implies a sequencing among tools but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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