List tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral specifics beyond the schema: newest-first ordering and per-link indexed/unindexed/pending/error counts, which help the agent understand what results to expect.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action, ordering, output counts, filters, and intended use with no filler. The most important selection-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 the low complexity, the full annotation safety profile, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke this tool correctly: what it lists, how it orders results, what counts are included, and how to filter.

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 50%, with type and status already described in the schema. The description restates 'filter by type or status' but adds no new meaning for those parameters, and it does not compensate for the undocumented page and per_page parameters beyond what their names and defaults imply.

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 the action (list), the resource (the account's tasks), ordering (newest first), and key output characteristics (per-link counts). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like get_task and get_task_links by framing collection-level listing with counts and the explicit purpose 'find task ids.'

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 identifies a use case ('Use it to find task ids') and mentions available filters by type/status. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or direct the agent to alternatives like get_task for single-task details, but the sibling context makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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