List Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious behaviors not covered by annotations: the default limit of 100 and maximum of 200, and the fact that duration filters are in total minutes with exact/range matching. These are valuable behavioral details that help the agent predict results.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence gives limit behavior, and the third provides detailed filter semantics with examples. No extraneous content; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: it does not clarify whether filters combine with AND, what 'search' targets, or the distinction between state and status. It covers the most complex aspect (duration filters) but does not fully round out the tool's behavior, making it moderately complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 27% (3 of 11 parameters have descriptions), so the description must compensate. It does explain the three duration-related parameters with concrete examples, and the default limit is not in the schema. However, other parameters like state vs status, search scope, and planned_for_date are not elaborated, so the compensation is only 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 opens with 'List owned Tasks using only supported filters,' clearly specifying the verb (List), resource (owned Tasks), and scope (supported filters). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like personal_os_get_task (single task retrieval) and tools for other resource types. The mention of ownership adds precision beyond the title.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to list owned tasks with a defined set of filters. It also gives operational details like default/max limits and duration filter semantics. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., get_task for a single task) or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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