list_runnable_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the filtering semantics, which is the most important behavioral fact here. However it says nothing about ordering, pagination behavior, or what a returned task record contains.

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?

A single front-loaded line with no filler; the scope leads and the filter criteria follow. It is arguably too terse, omitting entirely rather than padding, but every fragment earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some burden for return shape, which it does not describe beyond the implicit 'task list' and the filter conditions. The enumerated gating criteria partly compensate for that gap, making it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

There is one parameter (limit) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or its bounding/pagination behavior. With a documented param left entirely to the schema and no compensating detail, the description does not earn the 0-param baseline of 4.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (tasks) with a scoping qualifier, 'runnable by this principal', that separates it from the sibling list_tasks by implying only executable-now tasks are returned. The parenthetical enumerates the gating conditions (READY, deps satisfied, ACL, required_capabilities, preferred_agent). It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The scope phrase 'runnable by this principal' hints at the use case (finding tasks I can actually claim/execute, versus the general list_tasks), but the agent must infer that routing decision itself.

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