List background tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: it reads persisted metadata, meaning tasks started before a termux-mcp restart still appear — a non-obvious trait an agent would otherwise guess wrong about.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the persistence caveat following. Every clause carries information the agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and a 100%-covered two-parameter schema, the only remaining gap is return shape — and the description compensates by naming the returned fields, so no output schema is needed. Nothing required for a correct call 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 100%, with limit (max 500, default 50) and include_finished (default true) fully documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameter behavior beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('background tasks') and enumerates the fields returned (state, PID, exit code, log size, paths). The resource domain is clearly distinct from siblings like terminal_list and task_output, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description establishes this is the enumeration entry point for background tasks, but never says when to prefer it over task_output (read a single task's output) or terminal_list, nor any exclusions. The restart note is behavioral context, not selection guidance.

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