hermes_tasks_list

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'durable' characteristic and filter behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or how status values map to concrete bridge states.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core operation and the optional filters efficiently, and every word contributes meaning.

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 optional-parameter listing tool, the description combined with fully documented schema, strong annotations, and an output schema is nearly complete. It could be improved by explicitly directing agents to sibling tools for single-task retrieval, but no critical invocation details are missing.

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 the parameters limit, status, and conversation_key are already documented. The description only loosely echoes the filtering parameters without adding new format constraints, allowed values, or behavioral details 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('durable bridge tasks'), and the optional filtering dimensions ('conversation and bridge state'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like hermes_task_get, hermes_task_wait, and hermes_task_cancel by signaling a listing operation rather than a single-task or mutation operation.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need to list bridge tasks, optionally filtered by conversation or status. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it or when a sibling such as hermes_task_get or hermes_task_wait would be more appropriate.

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