list_tasks

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses assignee resolution (user id or member name, auto-converted to id), project fixation via gdc_login, and filter semantics. It does not describe the return shape, but an output schema exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the primary action, followed by short lines with essential operational details. No redundant or filler content.

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 5-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, the key assignee parameter, filter meanings, project dependency, and sibling differentiation. It omits limit behavior, but the schema provides a default, making it sufficiently complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: assignee accepts integer user id or member name (full_name/username) and is auto-interpreted as id. It also explains the boolean filters (not_finished/overdue/undated) with Korean glosses. The limit parameter is self-explanatory with a default, so the gap is acceptable.

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: '특정 담당자의 태스크를 현재 레포 프로젝트에서 조회한다' (retrieves tasks for a specific assignee in the current repo project). It also explicitly contrasts with list_my_tasks, clearly differentiating sibling scope.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: '내' 태스크는 list_my_tasks를, 특정 담당자는 이 도구를 쓴다 (use list_my_tasks for 'my' tasks, this tool for a specific assignee). It also warns that the project must be set via gdc_login (미설정 시 오류), giving a concrete prerequisite.

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