tasks_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered by structured data. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, that pagination is local (client-side), which explains the schema's instruction to keep the same limit across pages; the note about subtasks overlaps the hierarchy parameter description. It does not describe ordering, total counts, or cost of fetching large hierarchies.

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?

Two short sentences with the resource and pagination scope front-loaded and no filler. Brevity is appropriate, though the second sentence is largely redundant with the schema's hierarchy description.

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 and six parameters, the description should carry more weight than two sentences: it says nothing about ordering, what a task record contains, or how local pagination interacts with filtering. Annotations cover the read-only safety profile and the schema covers every parameter, so it is minimally viable, but thin for a hierarchy-aware listing tool.

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 page, limit, status and hierarchy all documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter-relevant content, that subtasks appear in the hierarchy, restates what the hierarchy enum already says rather than adding new semantics.

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 and resource in Portuguese: lists the tasks of a pipeline item, with pagination, and notes that subtasks are included in the hierarchy. An agent can tell this apart from siblings like pipeline_items_list or pipeline_get. It stops short of an explicit contrast with those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the description: it is a read-only listing of tasks for a given pipeline item. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no guidance on choosing hierarchy='root' vs 'all' (the schema supplies the mechanics but not the intent), and no note about when to prefer another sibling tool.

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