task_list

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 states 'Lihat daftar' (View list), which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, how it handles empty lists, if there are rate limits, or what the output format is. The description is too brief to provide meaningful context beyond the basic action.

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, concise sentence in Indonesian: 'Lihat daftar delegation task pada room aktif.' It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as clarifying the scope or output.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it should provide more context about behavior (e.g., what 'active room' means, if authentication is needed). The description is minimal but adequate for a simple list tool, though gaps remain in usage and transparency.

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 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing for the description to add beyond what the schema provides. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate 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 'Lihat daftar delegation task pada room aktif' translates to 'View list of delegation tasks in active room', which provides a basic verb+resource combination ('view list' + 'delegation tasks in active room'). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like task_get (which retrieves a specific task) or task_offer (which offers tasks). The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about scope or differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active room), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like task_get for individual tasks or room_local_summary for room-level information. Usage is implied by the phrase 'pada room aktif' (in active room), but this is minimal and not explicit.

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