task_list

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description carries a reduced burden and does not contradict it. Beyond that it adds almost nothing: no ordering, no pagination, no indication of whether all tasks are returned when the filter is omitted, and no note on result volume.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the qualifier in parentheses. Nothing is redundant, though the extreme terseness leaves no room for the context a list operation needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place an agent could learn what a result entry looks like, whether results are paginated, or how they are ordered. For a listing tool those omissions are material, and the description addresses none of them.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter. Calling it an "optional status filter" usefully establishes optionality and that status narrows rather than targets the result, but it never states the default behavior when omitted (presumably all statuses) or that the enum accepts only workflow states.

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 ("List") and resource ("tasks") with the scope qualifier "optional status filter." An agent immediately understands this is the enumeration tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like task_next, task_sort, or task_render, which also surface task collections.

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 parenthetical hints that filtering by status is permitted but gives no guidance on when to prefer this over task_next or task_sort. There is no statement of when to use it, when not to, or how it relates to any sibling.

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