list_my_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so excellently by revealing that filtering is server-side when a project is stored, but client-side with only first-page visibility when not, potentially causing omissions. It also explains filter semantics (not_finished, overdue, undated) which go beyond a simple 'list' operation and disclose the tool's accuracy and edge cases.

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 the main purpose, followed by clear context and a bulleted list of parameter semantics. Every sentence adds value, and the use of bold and bullet points improves readability. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool with no filler.

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?

The description is quite complete: it covers the core function, project context, filtering behavior, fallback scenario, and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return values are adequately covered. The only gap is that it does not specify how multiple filters (not_finished, overdue, undated) combine logically (AND vs OR), which could lead to ambiguity. Given the tool's modest complexity, this is a minor omission.

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 explicitly explains the meaning of three boolean parameters: not_finished (not done), overdue (past planned end date), and undated (no planned end date). However, the 'limit' parameter is not described in the text; its meaning is only implied by the phrase '첫 페이지만 보므로' (only first page shown). Since the description covers most parameters well but omits limit, a 4 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 clearly states the tool's function: it retrieves the current user's tasks (assignee/creator/participant). It further distinguishes the scope by fixing the project to the one selected via gdc_login, which separates it from generic list_tasks or search_tasks. The verb '조회한다' and the resource '현재 사용자의 태스크 목록' are specific and 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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need the current user's tasks within the repo-specific project selected by gdc_login. It also describes fallback behavior when no project is saved. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., list_tasks or search_tasks) or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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