list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic operation without disclosing that it is a read-only listing, what the return format looks like, ordering, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 a single short sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient for such a simple tool.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. Yet, the lack of any information about the return structure, ordering, or potential empty results leaves meaningful gaps in understanding what the tool delivers.

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 phrase 'd'un ticket' adds meaning by implying that ticket_id identifies the ticket whose tasks are listed. However, the description does not elaborate on the parameter's role, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides (integer, required).

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 'Liste toutes les tâches d'un ticket' clearly states the verb (list), the resource (tasks), and the scope (of a ticket). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_tickets, get_ticket, and add_task, which have different resources or purposes.

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 implies usage when you need to retrieve all tasks belonging to a specific ticket, identified by ticket_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_followup or add_task.

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