list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains filtering behavior, defaults, and a notable nuance: 'show_hidden must also be true to show tasks completed in first party clients.' It does not mention auth requirements or side effects, but as a list operation, read-only behavior is implied. The extra caveat adds useful context.

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 long but well-structured with an Args list and Returns section. The opening sentence is direct and informative. Every parameter earns its place given the tool's complexity, and there is 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?

For a complex tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema details beyond a string return, the description is comprehensive. It covers all parameters, defaults, constraints, and a behavioral caveat. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 compensates thoroughly. Each of the 13 parameters is documented with its type, default, constraints (e.g., max_results max 10000), and special notes (e.g., the interaction between show_hidden and show_completed). This is far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 'List all tasks in a specific task list,' which specifies the verb (list), resource (tasks), and scope (specific task list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task, list_task_lists, and task mutation tools.

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 (to retrieve tasks from a specific task list), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. For instance, it doesn't say 'use get_task for a single task.' However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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