list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ordering contract for every view, the 30-day window for 'done', the open-before-done ordering for 'all', and that the return is a JSON array. It does not mention pagination, result limits, or auth requirements, which is the remaining gap for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the view enumeration and the return type. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place; the enumeration of five views makes it long, though that length is functional rather than redundant.

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 two-parameter, zero-required listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameter values, ordering, and return shape. Only pagination/volume behavior and the exact task object shape are unaddressed, which are minor for this complexity level.

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%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: the schema only lists valid view strings, while the description explains what each view actually contains and how it is ordered. Filter semantics (title or tag, case-insensitive) are already in the schema and are not duplicated.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the tasks of one view, in the view's order") and then defines each view value precisely. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as search_tasks, but the 'view'-based framing is distinct enough that an agent can separate it from the other task tools.

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 per-view definitions effectively tell the agent which view to pick for which need (overdue work → 'today', future work → 'upcoming', undated → 'inbox', recent history → 'done', everything → 'all'). What's missing is guidance on when to use this tool versus search_tasks or get_task, but the usage context for the parameters is clear.

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