clawboard_list_tasks

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'list tasks' implying a read operation, but fails to disclose pagination, default behavior (limit=20 is in schema but not described), ordering, or access restrictions.

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?

One sentence, no filler. However, it is too brief and could benefit from a bit more context without losing conciseness.

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?

With 2 simple parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain pagination, ordering, or response structure, leaving gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the 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 100% with both parameters described (limit: max number, default 20; status: filter by status with enum). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'optional filtering', so baseline 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?

The description states a clear verb ('list'), resource ('tasks on ClawBoard'), and mentions optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like clawboard_get_task (single task) and clawboard_search_tasks (more complex search), though not 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., clawboard_search_tasks for advanced queries, clawboard_get_task for a specific task). The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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