List tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention default behavior (e.g., whether archived tasks are included by default, the default source, or pagination), what the response looks like, or any side effects. The description only states the basic function without disclosing these important operational details.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and lists the key filters. It contains no fluff or redundant phrasing. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't specify defaults for source or includeDone, doesn't describe the response format, and doesn't clarify behavior when no filters are provided. An agent would be uncertain about the tool's exact behavior without additional inference.

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 only 40% (query and includeDone have descriptions; tagId, source, projectId have none). The description adds some value by naming the filter dimensions, which maps to the parameters, but it doesn't explain their semantics (e.g., what source values mean, default of includeDone, or that all filters are optional). It partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb (lists) and resource (tasks), and enumerates the filter dimensions (title, project, tag, done-state, source). This distinguishes it from sibling sp_task_get (which retrieves a single task) by implication, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative. It is not a tautology and conveys the core purpose well.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need a list of tasks, optionally filtered) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like sp_task_get or sp_task_delete. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions, so the usage context is only implied.

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