list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose the required 'projects:read' scope, which is a non-obvious auth prerequisite. 'List' implies read-only, but pagination, result caps, and whether subtasks are nested or flattened are not addressed.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and returned, followed by filtering and the use case. No filler and every sentence contributes information.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned fields, the filtering mechanism, the downstream consumer (log_time), and the auth scope. It leaves pagination/result-size behavior and subtask nesting unstated, a minor gap for a simple two-parameter list tool.

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 both parameters are already documented, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces project_id as the project filter but never mentions active_on, adding little semantic meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Gantt tasks (and subtasks)') and enumerates the returned fields (id, project, name, date range), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_projects and list_time_blocks by its task-level scope and inclusion of subtasks.

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?

Gives a concrete primary use case: 'resolve a task name into the task_id that log_time takes,' which names the consuming sibling. It also tells the agent how to narrow results with project_id. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., versus list_projects for enumerating projects), so not a full 5.

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