list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important scoping constraint that results are limited to tasks visible to the current credential, which is meaningful behavioral context. It says nothing, however, about pagination, default ordering, or result volume beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words, and the credential-visibility scope is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing usage and parameter guidance flagged elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the credential-visibility scope is covered. Still, for a two-parameter list tool with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without any information on how limit and relationship_id shape results.

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 0%, so neither parameter is explained anywhere. The description does not mention limit or relationship_id at all. The credential-visibility constraint is arguably relevant to relationship_id filtering, but it is not framed that way, leaving both parameters semantically opaque.

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 (polling-based coordination tasks), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_contacts and read_inbox. However, it does not clarify its relationship to the sibling get_task, which likely retrieves a single task, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 contains no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the enumeration counterpart to get_task.

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