aiworkhub_task_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies read-only behavior via the verb 'List'. It says nothing about pagination, ordering, the 80-item default cap, scoping, or that the default status filter is 'pending', all of which materially affect what comes back.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is efficiently sized, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 3-parameter list tool with zero schema descriptions and no annotations the definition is too thin. Valid status values, the limit behavior, and how this list differs from the other task-listing siblings are all 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names 'status' and 'topic' (2 of 3 params) but omits 'limit' entirely and never enumerates valid status values, leaving the agent to guess the string domain even though the default is 'pending'.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List task cards') plus the two filtering dimensions ('by status and optional topic'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not, however, distinguish this from nearby siblings such as aiworkhub_task_pending_for_runner or aiworkhub_task_review_queue, which also surface task sets.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this instead of the task-specific listers (pending_for_runner, review_queue, task_show). Nothing tells the agent when a broad list is appropriate versus a scoped query, and no prerequisites or constraints are mentioned.

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