ue5_task_list

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never states that the operation is read-only, how large the result set may be, whether it paginates, or how far back 'history' extends. The only behavioral fact conveyed is that both active and historical entries are returned.

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 sentence that leads with the verb and scope, with no filler. The bilingual duplication is a localization choice rather than padding, though it does add tokens without new 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 zero-parameter tool the surface area is small, and the description does name the payload contents. But with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still cannot anticipate the response shape, volume, or ordering of the returned task list.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No misleading parameter hints are given.

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 ('journalized tasks'), and scopes it as 'active + history' with the content included (plans, progress, retrospectives). This distinguishes it reasonably well from the write-side siblings ue5_task_begin / ue5_task_step / ue5_task_end, though it never names them explicitly.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the other task-related tools (ue5_task_begin, ue5_task_step, ue5_task_end) or versus ue5_read_logs. A reader can infer it is the read side of a task journal, but nothing states preconditions, ordering, or exclusions.

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