list_system_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read behavior is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context—it does not mention pagination, return format, authentication needs, or any side effects. It simply provides an HTTP path, which is not behavioral disclosure.

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 short and not verbose, but it is also under-specified. It consists of two lines 'Read Task' and the HTTP endpoint, which is not structured to front-load meaningful information. While concise, it fails to provide a useful summary, making the conciseness a negative trait rather than a positive one.

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?

Even for a no-parameter read tool, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'system task' is, what the output schema contains, or any operational details. The presence of an output schema and annotations does not compensate for the total absence of domain context. An agent has no idea what this tool actually returns or when to invoke it.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate; the description does not detract from this.

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 'Read Task' is extremely vague and essentially restates the tool name without specifying what 'system task' means or what the tool returns. The HTTP path 'GET /api/v1/system/task' hints at a collection operation, but the description does not explicitly state 'list all system tasks' or differentiate from other list_* tools. It lacks a clear verb-resource semantic.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention conditions for using it instead of list_system_status, get_system_task_by_id, or any other sibling. No context about prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions is provided.

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