list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the safety profile; 'List' does imply a read-only operation, which is the main behavioral signal. It does not mention ordering, pagination, or behavior for an invalid run_id, so disclosure remains partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding; every clause (scope, status, role, dependencies) carries information. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 simple one-parameter lister with an output schema already defining return values, the description covers scope and content adequately. The remaining gaps are edge-case behaviors (nonexistent run, ordering), which are minor at this complexity.

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% for the single parameter run_id, so the description has to compensate. The phrase 'in a run' loosely links run_id to the run being listed, but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List all tasks in a run') plus the fields returned (status, role, dependencies), which separates it from execution siblings like execute_task and get_task_evidence. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_run, which also touches a run's contents, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied by the scoping phrase 'in a run'; there is no statement of when to call this versus get_run or get_task_evidence, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer the purpose but is given no routing guidance.

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