Tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the default behavior and sorting, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination (despite a page_token param), rate limits, or whose auth is required beyond 'signed-in user'.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the filterable dimensions followed by the default. Zero wasted words.

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 10-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary filters and defaults but omits pagination flow and output shape. Adequate but with clear gaps given the parameter count.

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 30%, so the description must compensate. It names the filter dimensions (matter, assignee, status, due date from–to, text) and clarifies the default assignee/incomplete behavior, mapping to several params. But it does not explain limit, page_token, or all_assignees semantics, leaving significant gaps.

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (tasks), and enumerates the filterable dimensions (matter, assignee, status, due date, text). It distinguishes itself from siblings like clio_task_create/update by being the read/list counterpart, though it does not name a sibling alternative explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear default context ('the signed-in user's incomplete tasks sorted by due date'), which implies when to rely on defaults, but offers no explicit exclusions or guidance on when to use a different listing tool. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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