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 states only the basic action ('list tasks') without revealing pagination behavior, filtering capabilities, return structure, or whether it is a read-only operation. This is minimal disclosure, adding little 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 very short, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. It earns its place for stating purpose, but it omits critical context that would make it useful. It reads more like a bare minimum than a well-crafted concise description.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks essential context for a list tool with pagination and filters. It does not mention that tasks can be filtered by type or assigned user, nor does it explain pagination behavior. The description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities and limitations.

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%, and the description adds no information about the four parameters (limit, offset, task_type, assigned_to_user_id). The description does not compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, leaving agents without any semantic understanding of how to use these parameters.

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 'List tasks from Buildium' clearly identifies the verb (list) and resource (tasks), making the tool's purpose obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_task' (single-item retrieval) and 'list_task_categories' (different resource) because it specifically targets tasks, not categories or individual items.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use list_task_categories or get_task, nor does it specify any exclusions or prerequisites. The only clue is the name and generic 'list tasks' phrasing, which is insufficient for selecting among many sibling list tools.

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