task_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that batch operations are atomic, defines the effects of reassign/fail/supersede, and notes the no-parameter backward-compatible behavior. Yet it omits permissions, reversibility, and preconditions such as which task statuses are eligible for batch mutation, which is significant for a tool that can write.

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 dense but highly organized: 'List tasks' is front-loaded, followed by labeled groups for filters, sorting, pagination, and batch operations. There is no filler, and each segment earns its place.

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?

This is a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the main listing and batch behaviors well, but it leaves gaps around output format, error behavior, and batch-action preconditions (e.g., whether completed or failed tasks can be reassigned). For a mutation-capable tool, more context would be expected.

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 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying that batch actions are atomic, that batch_agent is the target for reassign, that batch_reason applies to fail/supersede, and that omitting parameters returns all tasks. These details supplement rather than repeat the schema.

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 opens with 'List tasks', a specific verb+resource, and immediately enumerates filters, sorting, pagination, and batch operations. It is clear in scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like task_reassign, task_fail, or task_supersede, even though its batch_action overlaps with them.

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 practical usage guidance: it explains filter semantics, sort options, pagination via limit/offset, requires task_ids for batch_action, and notes that no parameters returns all tasks for backward compatibility. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over the single-task sibling tools, nor when batch_action should be avoided in favor of those alternatives.

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