List Tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond parameter semantics; it does not mention return format, default limit, or ordering. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds some value but is not rich in behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clean list of arguments. Every sentence is informative, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description thoroughly covers all 9 parameters, which is good for a tool with no output schema. However, it lacks details about the return value shape, pagination behavior (beyond cursor/limit), or default limits. Since openWorldHint already implies some pagination, the description is adequate but not fully complete for a complex tool with many filters.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It provides meaningful explanations for all 9 parameters, including status enum values, ISO 8601 format for dates, and inclusive bounds for due_at_from/to. While some descriptions are terse (e.g., 'Filter by space ID'), they add essential meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List tasks in Confluence' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like get_task, list_pages, and list_blogposts. It states the core function without ambiguity.

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 lists many filter parameters, implying use cases like filtering by status, space, or page. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, mention exclusions, or provide context about pagination limits. Usage is implied but not directly guided.

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