fusion_list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: the specific endpoint, the refusal of ANY with an explanation, the absence of outcome data in the list, and the dead-end alternative routes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then provides integration context, usage caveats, and parameter details in a logical order. The list of six 404 routes is somewhat verbose but purposeful because it prevents wasted exploration. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but every part 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?

With only two optional parameters and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed to call the tool correctly: user-scoped worklist, status semantics, limit behavior, invalid ANY handling, and the important caveat to follow up with fusion_task_detail. The output schema handles return-value documentation, so nothing essential 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: status is explained as the service's own status values with ASSIGNED as an example and ANY explicitly excluded, while limit is defined as maximum tasks returned. This is sufficient for correct invocation, though enumerating valid status values would have been even stronger.

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 opens with 'Approvals and notifications waiting for the signed-in user,' which clearly identifies what the tool returns and for whom. It also distinguishes this tool by naming its dedicated endpoint as a 'third channel' and explicitly points to fusion_task_detail as a separate follow-up tool.

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 explains when to use the tool: to see approvals/notifications for the signed-in user. It also gives explicit follow-up guidance—call fusion_task_detail before acting because outcomes are not included—and warns that status ANY is rejected. The note that six plausible routes answer 404 helps prevent the agent from trying wrong alternatives.

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