List Tasks

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description wisely spends its budget on behavior instead: the pending-only default, inclusive date semantics, and the non-obvious rule that undated tasks vanish once a due_from/due_to filter is set. It omits any mention of pagination or result-size behavior, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by default behavior and then three intent-to-parameter examples that each carry routing value. Slightly repetitive between the prose default and the example lines, but nothing is wasted.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers default filtering, date format, and the undated-task edge case. It leaves pagination (page_token, next_page_token) unaddressed, so an agent has no description-level cue that results may be truncated.

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 100%, so parameters are already documented; the description nevertheless adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that due ranges are inclusive and by demonstrating how date filters and include_completed combine in practice. The interaction between include_completed and the completed_from/completed_to range is only shown by example rather than stated as a rule.

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 plus the scoping constraint ('in one list'), which distinguishes it from gtasks_get_task (single task) and gtasks_list_task_lists (lists themselves). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent infers the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

Gives a clear default (pending only) and maps concrete user intents to parameter combinations ('what is due today or overdue?' -> due_to=<today>), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not state when to prefer a different tool or what to do when the list_id is unknown beyond the schema note pointing at gtasks_list_task_lists.

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