list_system_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the core safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method GET and the nuance that taskid can retrieve a single task's properties, which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe response format, error conditions, or pagination, so it only partially extends the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise, with the core purpose in the first line and the parameter semantics in the Args block. It front-loads the verb and resource. The only minor issue is that the endpoint is stated in the description despite the schema already implying it, but that is a small redundancy. Overall, every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the parameter's effect and the resource. However, it lacks examples, error scenarios, or any mention of what a 'task' is or how to obtain a taskid. The output schema likely covers return structure, but the description could be more helpful for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must carry the parameter meaning. The description explains that taskid can list a single task's properties versus listing all tasks, which adds semantic value. However, it does not specify the expected format (string) or constraints (e.g., whether it must be a valid ID), leaving some ambiguity. For a single optional parameter, this is adequate but not rich.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'tasks', which is clear enough to identify the tool's purpose. The Args line adds 'List tasks or a single task properties', explaining the optional taskid parameter's effect, further clarifying what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling list tools like list_system_jobs or list_system_health, so it falls short of a 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention use cases, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between list_system_tasks and other list_* tools. The only implicit hint is the resource name, which is insufficient for routing.

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