swsd_list_record_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered without prose. The description adds a field list, but with an output schema present that is largely restatement; it says nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination behavior for a list call.

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 zero filler: scope first, return shape second, related-tool pointer last. Nothing is buried and no sentence could be removed without losing information.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema covering return values, the description supplies what is needed. The only shortfall is silence on whether the returned list is truncated or paginated, which matters for a list operation.

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 100% and both parameters carry their own descriptions, including the enum values for record_type. The description's mention of 'problem, change, or release' mirrors the enum rather than adding new meaning such as ID lookup conventions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource — 'List sub-tasks on a SWSD problem, change, or release' — and enumerates the exact record types covered, which distinguishes it from the sibling swsd_list_incident_tasks. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

Points to the paired write tool ('Use swsd_create_record_task to add a sub-task'), giving a clear read/write routing cue. It does not state the inverse exclusion — that incident sub-tasks belong to swsd_list_incident_tasks, not here — so the boundary with that very similarly named sibling is left implicit.

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