tb_unblocked

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it lists tasks with no unresolved dependencies, which is a behavioral filter. However, it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens in case of no results, or any pagination/ordering behavior. The description is minimal but not misleading; it adds some context beyond the tool name.

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 no redundancy. It is concise and easy to parse, but given the complexity of the input schema (6 parameters, nested objects), the brevity might be considered under-specification. However, the description itself is efficiently written, achieving a balance of clarity without extra fluff.

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?

The description lacks essential context for a list operation. It does not specify the scope (e.g., tasks on a particular board, although board_id is required), what the output format is, whether pagination is supported, or any additional filtering options. The description gives only a high-level purpose without covering operational details, which is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and without annotations.

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 17% (only board_id has a minimal description). The tool description does not reference any parameters or explain how they influence the result. It does not mention the required board_id, nor any optional parameters like actor or capability. The description completely fails to help the agent understand the parameters or their interaction, leaving the agent to rely on the sparse 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?

The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('all tasks that are ready to be worked on'), with a specific condition ('no unresolved dependencies'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tb_status or tb_query, which serve different purposes. The verb and scope are precise and unambiguous.

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 usage context: it is used to find tasks that are ready for work. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, the description implicitly indicates when this tool is appropriate (when you need a list of actionable tasks). No exclusions are stated, but the context is enough for an agent to infer suitable usage.

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