list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns task names, headlines, status, and full content, and references a format guide, but it does not state read-only behavior, limitations, or potential output size implications. This is adequate 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 three purposeful sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then states return fields, then gives usage guidance and a pointer to further format details. Every sentence 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?

For a simple, single-parameter list tool, the description covers purpose, return content, and usage context, and points to a resource for detailed format specifications. It could be slightly stronger by naming sibling tools for alternative use cases, but it is otherwise complete enough for correct invocation.

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% and the only parameter, 'section', has a clear enum of 'Tasks' and 'Completed Tasks'. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all tasks in a section of tasks.org.' It also states exactly what is returned (task names, headlines, status, full content), which clearly identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it from task-specific or search-oriented siblings.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Use this to check for existing tasks before creating new ones, or to get an overview of work in progress.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives like search_tasks or get_task, but the stated use cases are sufficient for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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