wealthbox.tasks.list

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description carries the full burden but only lists query parameters. It does not disclose return format, default pagination behavior, whether the list is ordered, or any access restrictions. The bare parameter list is not sufficient behavioral transparency for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List tasks') and then packs the parameter list. No wasted words; every element adds 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?

For a simple list tool, the description provides the essential filter and pagination parameters, which is sufficient for basic invocation. But it lacks guidance on output shape, default page size, ordering, and when to choose this over sibling list tools. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally complete but not thorough.

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?

The schema has no descriptions and coverage is 0%, so the description's enumeration of query parameters adds value by indicating which fields are supported. It also provides the date format for due_date (YYYY-MM-DD) and clarifies completed is boolean. However, most parameters are just named without deeper meaning, leaving ambiguity about their exact semantics.

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 starts with 'List tasks', a clear verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like wealthbox.tasks.get (singular) and tasks.create/update/delete. It immediately conveys the tool's function as a collection-fetching operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that tasks.get is for a single task, nor does it explain when filtering versus pagination might be appropriate. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing against the broader toolset.

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