tasks_list

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 states this is a list operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm this or mention any behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'after' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no filters are applied. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('List all tasks') followed by the key additional feature ('with optional filtering'). Every word earns its place, making this optimally efficient in terms of length and structure.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, what the filtering options are, or any behavioral constraints. For a list tool with multiple filtering parameters, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'optional filtering' generically without explaining what parameters exist, what they do, or how to use them. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters like 'after', 'archived', 'associations', 'limit', and 'properties' completely unexplained.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all tasks'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It also mentions optional filtering, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'tasks_search' or 'tasks_get', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_search' or 'tasks_get' from the sibling list. It mentions optional filtering but doesn't explain what types of filtering are available or when to use this versus a search tool. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.

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