list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the 'historical' scope and the default limit of 50, but does not describe return format or pagination behavior. This is comparable to the calibration example where a filtered-list tool with read-only annotations earned a 3.

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?

One concise sentence delivers the verb, resource, scope, filter options, and default limit. Every element earns its place and the key action is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only listing tool with three optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all functional essentials: what the tool lists, how to filter, and the default limit. Annotations cover safety and the output schema covers return values, so nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does name projectPath and status as filter dimensions and adds the default limit of 50, which the schema does not specify. However, it does not clarify valid status values, projectPath format, or the limit maximum, so the compensation is partial.

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 states a clear verb and resource: '列出历史任务' (list historical tasks). It also mentions the key filtering dimensions, making the core purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as query_task, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list historical tasks with optional filters) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better alternative. The usage context is clear but there are no exclusions.

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