List an agent’s tasks

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'Admin only' authorization requirement and the 'currently running' temporal scope, both of which go beyond structured annotations. There is no contradiction between description and annotations.

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?

Three short, purposeful sentences. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by permission and practical use case. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema, this description is complete: it states what is listed, the admin-only restriction, and how to interpret the results. Nothing essential is missing.

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 single agent_id parameter is fully documented by the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. The phrase 'an agent's tasks' reinforces that agent_id selects the target agent, but no new parameter-level detail is provided.

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 identifies the resource as an agent's currently running work, states the admin-only access, and adds an operational purpose: discovering which pipeline to cancel. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pipelines and get_agent.

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?

It explicitly frames when to use the tool: when an agent is busy and you need to know what is occupying it and which pipeline to cancel. It does not list alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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