list_tasks

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 mentions optional status filtering but fails to describe pagination behavior (though cursor is in schema), the meaning of 'implied by engagement state', whether it is read-only, or any ordering or default engagement behavior. The description is too vague to set accurate expectations.

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 concise sentence with no fluff. It is efficient, though it lacks structural elements like a summary of parameters or examples. It earns points for being brief and front-loading the core purpose, but the brevity comes at the cost of clarity.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned tasks look like and how the engagement state is determined. It does not mention return format, pagination expectations, or the meaning of 'implied by engagement state'. The agent is left with significant gaps in how to call and interpret 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 75% (limit, cursor, engagement have descriptions; status lacks one). The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides—'optionally filtered by status' merely restates the existence of the status parameter. Since coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, but the description adds no value on top of 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?

The description clearly names the resource ('tasks') and the action (listing), and distinguishes it from sibling list tools (list_findings, list_engagements, list_entities) by focusing on tasks. However, the phrase 'implied by engagement state' is ambiguous—what engagement state and how tasks are implied is not explained, slightly reducing clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or why to choose list_tasks over search, list_findings, or list_engagements. The only hint is the optional status filter, but no context for decision-making is provided.

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