list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states 'Returns: JSON result.' It does not disclose that this is a non-mutating read, whether results are paginated or ordered, or what the caller needs (e.g., no auth prerequisites stated). For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by tightly grouped Args and Returns blocks; no filler. The docstring-style formatting is slightly mechanical but every line carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all three parameters are documented. What's missing is behavioral context an agent needs for correct invocation: ordering/pagination of results and how this list relates to the sibling task tools. Adequate but incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the valid status values (queued, running, completed, failed, cancelled), explains assistant_id as a filter, and gives limit's meaning and default. This is materially more than the bare schema provides, though enum values are documentation rather than a formal enum constraint.

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 (delegated tasks) with a scope qualifier ('recent or active'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like get_task or list_pending_approvals, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 on when to use this versus get_task (single task), cancel_task, or list_pending_approvals. The 'recent or active' qualifier hints at scope but is never tied to an alternative or a when-not condition.

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