list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, sorting behavior, pagination limits, data freshness, or authentication requirements. The term 'summaries' hints at reduced detail but lacks specificity.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from additional structure to improve scannability.

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 the lack of output schema and the need to understand what fields 'task summaries' include, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the return value structure, default limit, ordering, or how to interpret the summaries, leaving the agent uncertain.

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 all three parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline. No parameter-specific information is provided in the description text.

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 clearly states the action (list), resource (task summaries), and context (TRAE desktop/mobile progress views). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_task_status (detailed status) and cancel_task (action).

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?

The description implies usage for progress views but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_task_status or list_artifacts. No exclusions or conditions are mentioned.

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