list_active_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists tasks and returns a dict with tasks or error, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what constitutes an 'active' task. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting efficiently. Each sentence adds value, though the omission of 'project_id' in Args slightly reduces clarity. Overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description compensates well for parameters but lacks output details (only mentions 'Dict containing list of tasks or error message'). For a tool with no annotations and moderate complexity, it's adequate but incomplete, especially regarding behavioral context and output structure.

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 description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'project_name' filters by project name as an alternative to 'project_id', provides examples for 'filter_string' ('today', 'overdue', 'p1'), and specifies the default for 'limit' (50). However, it omits 'project_id' from the Args section, creating a minor inconsistency.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('tasks from Todoist'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from 'list_completed_tasks' by specifying 'active' in the tool name, though the description doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings beyond the name.

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 usage through parameter explanations (e.g., 'alternative to project_id'), suggesting when to use certain filters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over 'list_completed_tasks' or 'create_task'. No clear when-not-to-use or alternative tool recommendations are provided.

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