list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. Since this is a 'List' operation with zero parameters, it implies a read-only behavior which is self-evident from the purpose. However, it doesn't disclose what 'all' means (scope: all in current workspace? all across workspaces?), pagination behavior, or output volume expectations. For no annotations, 'List all' is minimally transparent but lacks scope detail.

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 extremely concise ('List all Tasks.'), consisting of exactly one sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters. Not verbose at all, though arguably too terse.

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?

There is an output schema present, so the return format is presumably documented there. The tool is simple (0 params, list operation). However, given the many sibling tools and existence of get_task_pack, link_task, suggest_task_links etc., the description could benefit from clarifying the scope of 'all tasks' (pagination, filter, workspace scope) and what relationship this bears to get_task_pack.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). The description doesn't need to elaborate on parameters that don't exist. The baseline of 4 for 0 params applies here.

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 states 'List all Tasks' which clearly identifies the verb (List) and resource (Tasks). It's adequate but minimal. It does not distinguish from siblings like list_components, list_repos, list_governance_entities beyond the resource name, though the verb+resource combination makes it reasonably clear what the tool does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (list_components, list_repos, list_governance_entities, get_task_pack, link_task), the description gives no context about when listing all tasks is appropriate vs. using get_task_pack or other task-specific tools. No exclusion criteria or usage context provided.

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