List / search 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 key behaviors: default exclusion of completed tasks, ordering by newest-updated, and filter combination logic (AND with specific unions for status/status_in and assignee/unassigned). This goes beyond the schema by clarifying default behavior and filter semantics. It doesn't mention pagination, error handling, or response format, but for a read-only list tool, the provided details are fairly rich.

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 exactly two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and ordering, then covers the key default and filter combination behavior. No unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's essence.

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 15 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: default exclusion of done tasks, ordering, and filter combination. It doesn't explain the response structure or pagination, but those are typically handled by the client and not critical for correct invocation. The sibling tools (like create-task, update-task) are distinct enough, and the parameter list is well-documented in the schema. The description is complete for making the right call, though adding a note about response being a list could help.

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 87%, so the schema already documents most parameters. However, the description adds value by explaining the combination rules (AND across filters, unions for status and assignee), which is not in the schema. This helps the agent understand how to combine filters correctly, which is crucial for effective search. It doesn't describe every parameter in detail, but schema covers them. Given the high coverage, baseline 3, and the added combination logic, a 4 is justified.

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 it lists and searches tasks, with a specific ordering (newest-updated first) and default exclusion of completed tasks. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get-task and create-task by focusing on list/search and from list-statuses and list-members by the resource type. It also mentions filter combination behavior, adding specificity beyond a generic 'list tasks'.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to list or search tasks, with filters. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives, but the inclusion of 'get-task' as a sibling and the description of this being a list operation implies the choice. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the context (titles of siblings) is clear enough for a well-functioning agent.

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