amulen_list_tasks

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it does not disclose default result ordering, that the default limit is 50 with offset paging, or whether results are truncated, so an agent cannot anticipate pagination behavior.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and then a compact key: value glossary with zero filler. The telegraphic style is dense but readable; it does not waste sentences on restating the schema or the title.

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 ten-parameter list tool with no output schema, the definition should say what comes back (full tasks vs. summaries), how pagination works (limit/offset defaults and max), and how project_slug relates to board_slug. None of that is present, so an agent can invoke it but cannot predict or page through results reliably.

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 description must carry parameter meaning, and it does explain six of the ten parameters, including the YYYY-MM-DD format for the date range and the meaning of q, estado, mias and asignado_a. It is silent on limit, offset, project_slug and board_slug, so half the parameter semantics are still undocumented.

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 first line gives a specific verb plus resource, 'List tasks in a board.', which tells an agent exactly what resource is returned and the required scoping. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as amulen_my_tasks or amulen_get_task, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The 'mias' note ('only tasks assigned to me') implicitly overlaps with amulen_my_tasks, but the description never routes the agent between them, leaving the choice to inference.

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