List tasks using a resource

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: no undo step, that every task in the range appears whether or not it carries a resource (distinguished by alreadyAssigned), and that hours are reported in hours rather than the view's volume unit. Pagination and response shape are left to the output schema.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single sprawling run-on sentence with dashes that is hard to parse and mixes return-column detail with usage guidance. It is not padded with filler, but the structure is poor for an agent scanning for the key facts.

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?

Given a 3-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is largely complete: it covers the read/write boundary, the empty-taskUuids semantics (also in schema), and the per-kind column meanings. Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining what each enum value of 'type' actually returns (role/machine_role a count, team a productivity, employee an efficiency, material an amount and calculation mode). That meaningfully enriches the enum beyond the schema's one-line 'all six kinds are readable'.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource: it reports per task whether a resource is carried and with which values, scoped to the capacity-planning 'Using tasks' page. It also distinguishes itself from the write sibling rillsoft_resource_usage_set. The prose is dense and slightly cryptic ('read through the contract'), which keeps it from a clean 5.

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?

It explicitly states the write path goes through rillsoft_resource_usage_set and adds the important exclusion that team assignments on tasks are not part of the write contract, so an agent knows this tool is the read side. It does not, however, contrast itself with other read siblings such as resource_pool_catalog_list or resource_absence_list.

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