list_tasks

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

The description usefully discloses that sources are read-only and that no task ids are invented, which adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, without annotations it does not cover ordering, pagination, permission requirements, or how include_mock affects results.

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 tightly written sentences with the core scope front-loaded and no redundant filler. The parenthetical source list earns its place by defining what counts as a task.

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 simple one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description covers source scope and the no-invented-ids guarantee. It is incomplete regarding include_mock behavior and result ordering/pagination, which an agent may need before calling.

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 sole parameter include_mock has 0% schema description coverage, but the description only alludes to MOCK fixtures in the source list. It does not explain what include_mock controls or what changing its default true value does, so the parameter remains under-specified.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List tasks') and narrows scope to tasks from connected read-only sources, naming concrete source categories. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_task_info.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_task_info or other siblings, and no when-not conditions. The read-only task-listing purpose is implied, but the agent must infer the selection criteria.

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