List tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read behavior is covered. The description adds valuable constraints: due dates are calendar dates only, and the Google Tasks API cannot store/return a due time. It also clarifies that omitting list_id spans all lists. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by essential scoping details. Every word earns its place; the second sentence about due-date limitations is concise yet important.

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?

With 5 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides a sufficient overview. It explains the list-wide vs. single-list behavior and the date-range option, leaving parameter details to the schema. Minor gap: no mention of sorting or pagination, but these are not critical for a simple read-only list operation.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., due_after due_before YYYY-MM-DD format is already in the schema). The mention of the API's date limitation is a behavioral note, not a parameter semantics enhancement.

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 states 'List tasks' with concrete scoping options ('from one list and/or within a due-date range'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task (single task) and list_task_lists by clarifying it can cover every list when list_id is omitted. The verb+resource+scope is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Omit list_id to cover every list' and combined list/date-range filters imply when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., search_tasks), but the filtering semantics are adequately conveyed for most scenarios.

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