yg_tasks_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 distinguishes server-side and client-side filtering, hinting at pagination behavior. However, it does not explain what 'client filters applied to the page' means operationally (e.g., local filtering after pagination?), nor does it mention auth requirements, rate limits, or default values. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose ('List tasks (the workhorse for watching)'). Every phrase adds value – it efficiently separates server and client filters in a clear, scannable way.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify return format, pagination limits, default values, or error behaviors. The client filter mechanism is ambiguous (e.g., are filters applied before or after pagination?). Missing crucial execution context for an agent.

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 only 20%, so the description carries a heavy load. It adds meaning to 5 parameters (assignedTo, completed, archived, deadlineBefore, changedAfter) beyond their names, but the remaining five (limit, offset, title, columnId, includeDeleted) are not elaborated. The description's server/client filter distinction helps, but does not fully compensate for low schema coverage.

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 'List tasks' and adds 'the workhorse for watching', indicating it's the primary tool for monitoring tasks. It distinguishes from siblings like yg_task_get (single task) and yg_task_create/update (mutations) by implying a list/filtering operation.

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 explains server filters vs client filters and the pagination parameters (limit, offset), providing context on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., when to use yg_task_get instead). The 'watching' hint suggests uses, but no direct 'when not to use' guidance.

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