List Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description adds value by disclosing the response envelope ({ items, pagination }), pagination fields, and default page_size. It does not overpromise beyond the read-only nature, so no contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value: response shape, pagination details, default page_size, and alternative tool guidance. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides the response structure and pagination semantics, which is important. It also covers a key usage pattern (discovering filter ids cheaply). However, it does not specify required parameters or behavior when filters are omitted beyond what the schema shows, so slight gaps remain.

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 71%, so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds general context about filtering and points to task_filters_data for valid ids, which is useful, but it does not detail each undocumented parameter (status, milestone, user_story). This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 states the tool 'List tasks' with optional filtering by query parameters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like task_get by focusing on listing rather than single retrieval, and further differentiates by pointing to task_filters_data for filter discovery.

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?

It explicitly provides an alternative: 'Use task_filters_data to discover valid status/tags/assigned_to ids cheaply instead of paging through results.' This tells the agent when to use a lighter-weight sibling instead of task_list, and implies task_list is for actual list retrieval, not filter metadata.

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