checkvist_list_top_level_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context by specifying what is returned (IDs and titles) and what is not (subtasks), which is useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or potential edge cases, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates scope and usage without 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?

For a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, how it differs from alternatives, and a recommended workflow. It could mention return format details, but 'IDs and titles' is sufficient for an overview tool. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter, checklist_id, is described as 'The ID of the checklist.' The description does not add extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable since the schema already fully covers it. Baseline of 3 applies.

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's function: fetching only top-level task IDs and titles, explicitly excluding subtasks. It differentiates from siblings like checkvist_get_tasks and checkvist_get_task_tree by emphasizing the 'top-level' scope and 'ONLY' qualifier.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this to get an overview, then use checkvist_get_task_tree to read each one individually.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and directs to the appropriate alternative for more detailed reads.

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