list_tasks

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds a valuable non-obvious default: removed tasks are hidden unless include_removed is true, and filter_include_nulls defaults to true in that context. This goes beyond the schema and helps predict results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the key edge-case behavior. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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 100% schema coverage, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description does not need to explain returns or every parameter. It covers the main purpose and the most surprising filtering default; a slightly broader note about query/filter options would make it fully comprehensive.

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?

All 11 parameters are described in the schema, so the baseline is met. The description adds extra meaning for include_removed and filter_include_nulls by explaining their interaction and defaulting behavior, which is not obvious from the individual parameter descriptions.

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 ('List'), a resource ('tasks'), and an optional project scope, making its function immediately clear. The plural form distinguishes it from get_task, and the resource separates it from list_projects/list_labels.

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 first sentence clearly frames when to call it: whenever a collection of tasks is needed, optionally narrowed to one project. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so an agent must infer that get_task covers single-task lookups. That keeps this just below the most explicit guidance.

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