task_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value type ('task metadata') and audience ('operator review'), but fails to state the read-only nature, pagination behavior, or potential rate limits typical for list operations in BPM systems.

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 optimally concise with two sentences: the first front-loaded with the action and filtering capabilities, the second clarifying the return value. No redundant words or tautologies.

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 high complexity of the BPM domain (80+ sibling tools) and empty input/output schemas, the description provides minimal viable context by listing filterable fields. However, it lacks critical details like pagination mechanisms, sorting options, or the structure of the returned task metadata.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description adds significant value by enumerating available filtering dimensions (assignee, candidate group, process instance, variables, due date) that compensate for the empty input schema, effectively documenting what would otherwise be undocumented parameters.

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 tool 'Query user tasks' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from mutation siblings like task_create or task_complete. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar query siblings like task_count or task_getById.

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 phrase 'for operator review' provides implied context about the intended user role, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus task_getById (single task retrieval) or task_count (aggregation). No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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