List the organization's tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful traits: status-only output, no answer content, one page of summaries, newest-first ordering, and exact returned fields. It does not mention pagination or auth, but those are partly covered by the schema and not essential for a read-style query.

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 three dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core answer, then gives the exclusion, then the compact field/filter list. The length is justified by the need to describe a return shape in the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates the returned fields and ordering. It names all filter dimensions, explicitly lists sibling alternatives, and leaves pagination to the already-detailed schema properties. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level filter grouping ('status, time window, topic, member, or group') but no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 first sentence states the exact question the tool answers: 'which tasks are open, expired, declined or done, and who has them'. It also explicitly contrasts itself with siblings by saying it never shows answers/reports, which clearly distinguishes it from get_task, query_events, and get_activity.

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 tells the agent when not to use this tool: if answer or report content is needed, use get_task, query_events, or get_activity. It also summarizes the available filters, giving clear context for selecting this tool over alternatives.

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