list_subtasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic operation and does not explain how 'current user' is determined, whether all projects are included, or any pagination/return format. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and a very brief description. It does not explain the return format or differentiate itself from the many similar list tools in the sibling set (e.g., list_my_tasks, list_my_board_tasks, list_in_development). This leaves the agent with insufficient information to select or invoke it with confidence.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (sprint and status), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but neither does it need to; however, the word 'all' in the description slightly conflicts with the sprint default of true, which restricts to sprint subtasks.

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 action (List), the resource (subtasks), and the scope (assigned to current user). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_my_tasks or list_in_development, making the purpose immediately clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_my_tasks or list_my_board_tasks. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool references, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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