Teamwork: list tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that completed tasks are excluded unless includeCompleted is true, which is a non-obvious default behavior. It also clarifies the scope of the search (across projects or within a specific list), adding beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences with no extraneous content. The main purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by the key behavioral note about completed tasks. Every word earns its place, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, scope, and a key default behavior (completed exclusion). However, it omits details on pagination (page, pageSize) and response format, which might be necessary for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool. The description is adequate but not exhaustive, especially without an output schema.

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 50% (search, projectId, tasklistId have descriptions; page, pageSize, includeCompleted do not). The description explicitly mentions includeCompleted and its effect, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not address page, pageSize, or pagination, leaving gaps for those parameters. The description partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but is not comprehensive.

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 the verb 'search' and the resource 'tasks', with a scope of 'across projects or within one project/task list'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_task (single task), create_task, and list_projects/list_tasklists (different resources). The mention of 'search' differentiates it from the generic 'search' tool by specifying task-specific behavior.

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 context on when to use the tool (searching tasks) and its scope (across projects or within a specific project/task list). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for a single task use get_task' or 'for broader search use search'. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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