List Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by disclosing the status vocabulary and that the detail view surfaces cost and exit code. It stays silent on pagination behavior, which matters because `limit` and `cursor` exist.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the two operating modes, then filters, then the workspace caveat. No filler and no restatement of the title.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the mode distinction is complete. However, a paginated list tool with `limit` and `cursor` in the schema and zero description coverage leaves the agent without default page size or continuation semantics — a meaningful gap for exactly this kind of tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It does well for 3 of 5 (`task` with its 'task_...' shape, `status` with concrete enum-like values absent from the schema, `workspace` with the id-vs-label and single-workspace omit rule), but `limit` and `cursor` are never mentioned, leaving paging entirely undocumented.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List serverless tasks (one-off GPU jobs)') and immediately clarifies the two modes: list-in-workspace vs. single detail lookup by task_id. The name 'tasks' is ambiguous on its own, so the parenthetical gloss and the id format example do real disambiguation work against siblings like submit_task and stop_task.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: filter with `status`, use the id from the workspaces tool for `workspace`, and omit workspace when the user has only one. It does not explicitly exclude misuses (e.g., 'do not use to submit or stop tasks'), but the read-only listing intent is unambiguous given the sibling names.

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