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 the default limit of 50 and the filtering capabilities, which are useful behavioral details. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or what happens when no filters are provided, which would add further transparency.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose (list historical tasks) and then adds the key filtering and limit details. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key parameters. However, it lacks details on return format, ordering, pagination, and how the status filter values are specified. Given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not complete.

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 must compensate for parameter meaning. The description mentions filtering by project path and status, which maps to the 'projectPath' and 'status' parameters, and mentions the default limit of 50, which maps to 'limit'. However, it does not explain the format of 'status' values or the exact semantics of 'projectPath', leaving some ambiguity.

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 specific verb ('列出' = list) and resource ('历史任务' = historical tasks), and mentions filtering by project path/status and a default limit of 50. It is clear about what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like query_task or get_task_report.

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 usage context: listing historical tasks with optional filters. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_task or get_task_report, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The filtering options give some context, but no explicit routing guidance is provided.

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