list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the output is a lightweight summary with no history[] and includes a computed idleSeconds while claimed/in_progress, and notes the cost benefit for polling. It does not explicitly state whether filters are combined with AND/OR, pagination, or ordering, but as a 'list' operation it clearly implies read-only 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?

The description is two sentences with no waste. The first sentence states the action and filters, the second provides important behavioral detail (lightweight summary, no history, idleSeconds) and points to get_task. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool.

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 list tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives useful context about return content and the trade-off vs get_task. However, it omits details about pagination, ordering, or result limits, which could matter in repeated polling. The presence of search_tasks as an alternative is not addressed, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 only lists the filter names (status, assignee, creator, tag) without adding meaning. It does not explain the expected format for assignee/creator, whether tag is exact/substring, or how multiple filters interact. The status enum is provided in the schema, but the description adds no parameter-level value.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List coordination tasks' with optional filters by status, assignee, creator, or tag. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_task by explicitly noting that this tool returns a lightweight summary and directing users to get_task for full records. This is a specific verb+resource+scope statement.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: repeated polling stays cheap, and for full records including history, call get_task. It names get_task as the alternative. However, it does not mention search_tasks, another sibling, leaving ambiguity about when to choose list_tasks vs search_tasks.

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