list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully discloses two behavioral traits beyond that: the default filter is open-only, and results are sorted by due date. It says nothing about pagination or result limits, so it adds moderate but not rich value.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then parenthetically qualifies the default scope. No filler, nothing redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers the default filter and sort order sufficiently to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination and how it relates to the other list_* tools.

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% and the single parameter include_done has no description, so the description must carry the meaning. 'Optionally including completed ones' does explain the parameter's effect and its default false behavior, but only in prose and without naming the parameter or confirming the default explicitly.

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 ('List open tasks') plus the ordering ('by due date') and a scope modifier ('optionally including completed ones'). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never names or contrasts with sibling listing tools such as list_appointments, list_correspondence or list_applications.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternative tool named. The scope ('open tasks') only implies usage; an agent must infer that this is the general task-listing entry point versus add_task/complete_task.

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