list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a strong job by noting that complete and dropped tasks are excluded by default, that filter.status can override this, that results are capped at limit, and that returned tasks include dueDate and tagIds. It stops short of describing ordering or pagination, which keeps it from a 5.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first, followed by concise scope guidance and the most important behavioral defaults. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant or promotional language.

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 list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential scope choices, default filtering, filter fields, limit cap, and a couple of return fields. It is slightly incomplete around ordering and pagination, and it omits the hasDeferDate filter from its summary, though the schema covers that field.

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 the scope requirements, filter fields, and limit default. The description adds some plain-language clarification like 'ISO datetime' and 'array of status strings', but most of this repeats existing schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 in OmniFocus within a scope', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It further disambiguates from siblings like get_task by framing the operation as a list across project, folder, inbox, or all tasks, making the scope explicit.

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 gives clear instructions on how to scope the request ('Provide exactly one of: projectId...') and mentions default filtering behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_task or list_projects. Usage is implied rather than stated with any exclusions or alternative routing.

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