bus_list_tasks

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, how they are ordered, or whether there is a default/maximum result count — all relevant for a list endpoint on a busy bus.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the resource is named before the optional filters. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification for a list endpoint.

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 two-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should say what comes back and how much. It omits return shape, ordering, result limits, and valid status values, leaving the agent to call it blind on a key read path.

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 0%, so the schema contributes nothing beyond bare string types; the description is the only source of meaning. It does map both parameters to intent (status filter, assignee/claimer filter) and usefully notes the claimer alias, but it gives no accepted status values despite no enums being defined in the schema.

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 and resource: "List tasks," with the added scope that filtering is optional. It is clearly distinct from the mutation siblings (bus_create_task, bus_claim_task, bus_complete_task), though it never explicitly names a read-alternative like bus_search or bus_inbox to route against.

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?

"Optionally filtered by status or assignee/claimer" implies the calling context (browse/filter the task list), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus bus_search or bus_inbox, and no statement of when a filter should be applied. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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