Pending tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, and the description reinforces this correctly rather than contradicting it ('tasks can not be created or deleted here'). It adds genuine operational value with the backlog-means-offline interpretation, but says nothing about pagination behavior or how large the backing collection typically is.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the diagnostic insight, then the safety scoping. No redundant or filler text.

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 six-parameter, fully documented read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, safety, and interpretation. The only real gap is that it does not set expectations about return volume or that paging is needed for large backlogs.

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%, including paging, sort, query operators, and the projection warning, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List queued ACS tasks') plus the underlying endpoint GET /tasks, and defines what a queued task is (an operation waiting for a device to connect). An agent can immediately distinguish this from acs_devices or acs_faults.

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?

Gives clear diagnostic context: a growing backlog on one device often signals it is offline or unreachable, which tells the agent when this tool is informative. It lacks an explicit 'use acs_device instead when...' routing statement relative to the sibling read tools, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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