sp_list_tasks

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It signals a read-only 'list' operation but does not state side effects explicitly, nor does it mention result shape, pagination, ordering, or the default active/non-done behavior that affects output. The schema provides defaults, but the description itself discloses almost no behavioral context beyond listing.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the operation and then gives the optional filters. No filler or repetition of schema details. It earns its place while remaining minimal.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it tells the agent what the tool does and the filter dimensions, but does not mention default source/archived semantics, includeDone behavior, or return expectations beyond 'tasks'. Since the schema covers the parameters, this is not critically incomplete, but it could be more useful for correct invocation.

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%, so parameters are already documented with names, types, defaults, and enum values. The description only summarizes those filters without adding any syntax, constraints, or cross-parameter behavior. 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 identifies a specific operation (list tasks), the resource (Super Productivity), and the optional filter dimensions. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like sp_get_task, sp_list_tags, or sp_list_projects. It does not name an alternative, so it stops short of the strongest sibling-aware phrasing.

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 when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternative routing appears in the description. An agent must infer that this is the tool for obtaining multiple tasks and has no guidance on when sp_get_task or sp_list_tags would be more appropriate. This is effectively no usage guidance beyond the name.

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