task_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention any default ordering, pagination, rate limits, or whether authentication is required. For a listing tool that could return many tasks, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap. The description is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It front-loads the key information without any wasted words. While it could benefit from additional structure (e.g., bullet points for behaviors), it is efficient and to the point.

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 simplicity of the tool (two optional parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It provides the core purpose, but does not elaborate on edge cases, default list behavior, or output structure. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden, but the description could be more 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already having a clear description in the schema (e.g., 'Filter by due date — natural language or ISO format'). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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?

The description 'List tasks from Microsoft To Do' clearly states the verb (List), resource (tasks), and source (Microsoft To Do). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'task_lists' which lists task lists, not tasks themselves. This meets the highest standard of purpose clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'task_add' or 'task_complete'. However, the name and brief description imply its use for listing tasks, and the presence of filter parameters suggests typical usage. It meets the minimum viable standard but lacks explicit when/when-not information.

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