List tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include status, attempts, and last error, which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't disclose default ordering, time window, or whether 'recent' is a fixed window, which would be relevant for interpreting results.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and the primary use case are front-loaded, and every word 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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and filter dimensions. However, it lacks details on result ordering, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, and what 'recent' means. Given the tool's diagnostic purpose, an agent might need to know whether results are sorted by recency or whether failed tasks are highlighted.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It mentions filtering by type/status/jobId, which maps to three of the four parameters, but it doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter or provide any format/semantics beyond what the schema enum names already convey. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), and adds the key attributes shown (status, attempts, last error) plus filter dimensions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like queue_status and queue_retry_failed by focusing on listing tasks with failure diagnostics, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'Use to see why something failed' gives clear context for when to call this tool, implying it is the diagnostic entry point for failed tasks. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like queue_status, but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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