tasks

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by enumerating the returned fields and noting the data reflects 'the last persisted reconciliation,' but it does not explain the list's scope cap or any pagination behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the operation first and then the payload. It wastes no words, though the field enumeration arguably belongs to the output schema rather than the description.

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?

An output schema exists and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile, so the missing return-value explanation is not a real loss. The unresolved gap is the two input parameters, especially 'k', which remain unexplained given 0% schema coverage.

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% and the description never mentions either input parameter. The opaquely named 'k' and the boolean 'include_ended' are left completely undefined in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List spawned tasks') and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like spawn_status, task_logs, tasks_refresh, or task_thread, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. With siblings such as tasks_refresh, spawn_status, and task_logs in the same namespace, the absence of any differentiation leaves the selection decision entirely to inference.

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