List tasks

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the statuses included and the extra detail that blocked tasks carry a reason, which is not in annotations or schema.

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 clear sentence with an em-dash, immediately conveying the tool's scope. The second clause about blocked reasons is useful and not redundant. No wasted words.

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 list tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, key statuses, and the blocked-reason feature. Slight gap is omitting 'failed' from the status list and not mentioning the optional limit/status filters, but overall adequate.

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%: both limit and status have descriptions. The tool description mentions some statuses (queued, running, blocked, done) but omits 'failed' from the enum, and does not add any additional parameter context beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool lists tasks in the current plan by status ('queued, running, blocked, or done'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like list_documents. It lacks an explicit differentiating statement, but the resource and scope are clear.

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 for checking plan progress and specifically calls out that blocked tasks include reasons 'so you know what to unblock', providing a clear use context. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for a simple read-only list tool.

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