A2A: List Tasks

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

The annotation only declares readOnlyHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral detail: reads the shared store on disk, makes no network calls, and describes the return content (summary row with state, peer, request text, counts of history/artifacts, not contents). This goes beyond the annotation and clarifies output limitations.

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 sentences with no redundancy. The core purpose is front-loaded, then return details, then a practical filtering tip. Every sentence 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 list tool with 3 optional params and no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns (summary rows with specific fields) and how to use the filters for a common case. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value by suggesting a meaningful filter combination (state "submitted" + direction "inbound") that maps to a specific business scenario, which is beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 specifically that it lists A2A tasks in the local store, newest change first, and that it returns summary rows. It differentiates itself from a2a_get_task by noting the summary nature and directing to that sibling for full bodies.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'use a2a_get_task for a body' and offers a specific filtering recipe ('Filter by state: "submitted" and direction: "inbound"') to see unanswered proposals. This gives clear context for selection among siblings.

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