List OmniFocus tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds that 'remaining' is the default filter, but does not explain return format, ordering, pagination, or the behavior of the includeCompleted parameter. The filter values are already listed in the schema enum, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that.

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 very concise: two short sentences that front-load the purpose and list filter options compactly. There is no wasted wording, and the default filter is efficiently communicated.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, but the schema covers most parameter meanings. The description adds the default filter but lacks context on filter semantics, parameter interactions, and expected output. It is adequate for a simple listing tool but leaves gaps such as what 'available' means and how includeCompleted behaves.

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 71%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the default filter ('remaining') and enumerating filter values, which the schema does not describe. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'available', 'due_soon', or the includeCompleted parameter, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 'List tasks' with optional filtering, which is a specific verb+resource. It lists the filter options (remaining, available, flagged, inbox, due_soon, all), distinguishing it from sibling tools like of_get_task (single task) and of_list_projects (projects).

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?

The description implies usage for listing tasks with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither names alternatives nor provides exclusions, such as using of_get_task for a single task. The filter list gives some context, but no direct comparative guidance.

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