everhour_list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a requirement constraint and lists filters, but does not explain return format, pagination behavior, what happens when neither query nor project is provided, or any authentication/rate-limit details. The requirement statement also contradicts the input schema (which shows no required parameters), making it misleading.

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 concise at two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. It communicates essential information without unnecessary fluff. However, the potentially inaccurate requirement statement slightly undermines its efficiency, preventing a perfect score.

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 six parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides only a basic overview. It does not explain the return value (e.g., a list of tasks), pagination defaults, or how this tool compares to everhour_get_tasks_for_project. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the overall context is incomplete for a complex search tool, leaving gaps for the 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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters well. The description adds no new meaning about parameter format, valid values, or interactions beyond repeating 'filtering by status, project, assignee, and search query.' The 'Requires either a query or project parameter' is a constraint on parameter combinations, not a semantic explanation of individual parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Search tasks from Everhour' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like everhour_get_task (single task retrieval) and everhour_get_tasks_for_project (tasks scoped to a project) by emphasizing search/filtering. However, the statement 'Requires either a query or project parameter' slightly confuses the purpose because the schema lists no required parameters.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Supports filtering by status, project, assignee, and search query' implies it is for flexible search across tasks. It also gives a prerequisite constraint ('Requires either a query or project parameter'), which offers guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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