list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: the default filter is open tasks only, custom markers are treated as single-character states, and each row carries a nearest-heading field. It stops short of describing ordering or how large vaults are paginated beyond the limit param, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, zero filler, with the output shape and default scope front-loaded before the sibling routing. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 6-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned row fields and stating the default filter. Combined with full schema coverage and readOnly annotations, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented with examples and semantics (tag nesting, ISO dates, limit range). The description only summarizes the scoping axes already present in the schema, plus a small clarification that custom markers like "/" are single-char states, which slightly aids the anyOf branch. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (Markdown checkbox tasks), then specifies the exact row shape returned (path, line, state, text, nearest heading). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'search' and from read_note, so an agent can select it without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternatives and rules them out: 'use this instead of searching for "- [ ]" or reading whole notes.' It also states the default scope behavior ('Defaults to open tasks') and hands off downstream to update_task, giving an explicit when-to-use path.

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