list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only a generic 'filters and pagination' note, which is largely a restatement of the schema properties. It does not disclose return shape, default behaviors like show_completed=true, or rate-limit/auth details, but it is consistent with the annotations.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and scoping. Every word contributes meaning, with no filler 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?

With 11 parameters, no output schema, and very low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain what the returned task objects look like, how pagination should be used, or the semantics/interaction of the date filters. The read-only annotations reduce risk, but an agent still lacks enough context to call this tool confidently with non-trivial 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 only 9%, with only task_list_id described. The description does not compensate by explaining the filter parameters (due_min, due_max, completed_min, completed_max, updated_min), date formats, or pagination mechanics. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds little semantic value beyond what the raw schema already shows.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('tasks in a Google task list'), and adds 'filters and pagination' to distinguish it from simply retrieving a task list. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_task_lists, which lists task lists, and get_task, which retrieves a single task.

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 this tool is for browsing/filtering tasks within a specific task list, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like get_task for a single task or list_task_lists for task lists. There is no exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance, so usage is mostly implied.

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