m365_tasks_list

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 safety profile is well covered. The description adds minimal context by noting tasks are within a task list, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, or filtering semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With annotations in place, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no filler words. It states the core action and scope efficiently, earning every word. There is no redundant or vague phrasing, making it highly concise.

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 read-only list operation with comprehensive annotations and full schema descriptions, the description is minimally viable but lacks usage guidance and explicit mention of return behavior or the need for a valid listId. The output schema is absent, but the operation is straightforward. A slightly richer description could improve completeness, but given the structured fields, it is adequate.

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 100%, with each parameter having meaningful descriptions (listId source, top max, filter syntax with an example). The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but since the schema fully documents them, a baseline of 3 is appropriate without needing to compensate.

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 tasks') and the resource ('in a task list'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like m365_tasks_lists (which lists the lists themselves) and mutation tools such as m365_tasks_create/update/delete. The inclusion of 'task list' and the required 'listId' parameter make the scope unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a listId from m365_tasks_lists), and no exclusions. It simply states the action without context. The schema mentions the listId comes from m365_tasks_lists, but that is not part of the tool description itself.

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