ispw_list_tasks

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful context that tasks represent modules or components such as COBOL programs, JCL, and copybooks, and that errors may be returned, but it does not disclose pagination, permissions, or response-shaping 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 definition is front-loaded with the purpose and then structured into Args, Returns, and Examples sections. It is somewhat repetitive because 'List all tasks' and 'Retrieves all tasks' restate the same action, but the overall size is reasonable for a simple list tool.

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 simple read-only list operation with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameters, return type, and an example. It is largely complete, though it could say more about pagination or whether all tasks are always returned.

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?

The schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must carry more of the parameter burden. It does list the three nested parameters and gives an example using srid and assignment_id, but the explanations largely restate the parameter names and do not add much format or validation detail beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List all tasks for a specific ISPW assignment.' It also clarifies that tasks are individual work items within an assignment, distinguishing this tool from sibling tools that operate on assignments, releases, sets, or packages.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: it retrieves tasks inside a given assignment. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of ispw_get_assignment, ispw_list_assignments, or other sibling tools, and it offers no exclusions or alternative-selection guidance.

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