tasks_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List all tasks' implies a read operation, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' and 'after' parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no tasks exist. The mention of 'optional filtering' is vague about implementation 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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place - 'List' (action), 'all tasks' (resource and scope), 'with optional filtering' (key capability). No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the filtering parameters, return format, pagination approach, or behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without significant trial and error.

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 for 5 parameters, the description provides minimal help. 'Optional filtering' vaguely references the parameters but doesn't explain what 'limit', 'after', 'properties', 'associations', or 'archived' actually do or how they affect the listing. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'List all tasks with optional filtering' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), and specifies scope ('all') with optional filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tasks_get (single task) and tasks_search (search with criteria), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from tasks_batch_read which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tasks_search or tasks_batch_read. It mentions 'optional filtering' but doesn't specify what types of filtering are available or when filtering would be appropriate versus using a different tool.

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