list_tasks

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses behavioral traits: provides id and ref, verbosity levels (minimal, standard, full), and default session usage. It adds useful context beyond the schema.

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 (few sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 no annotations and a simple list operation, the description covers key points: required project_id, optional filters, verbosity, and id/ref distinction. The output schema exists, so return format is covered. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination or result ordering.

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 0%. The description explains verbosity options and defaults for session_id and filters, but the 'filters' parameter has no semantic details beyond its title. Partial improvement over schema.

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 lists tasks within a specific project, optionally filtered, and distinguishes between 'id' and 'ref'. It is specific to tasks, distinct from sibling tools like list_issues or list_epics.

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 mentions when to use (list tasks in a project with optional filters) but does not provide explicit alternatives or when not to use. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

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