list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only paraphrases the schema's filter parameters and does not mention the pagination behavior implied by the 'start' parameter, default limits, error cases, or the read-only nature beyond the conventional meaning of 'List'.

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?

A single sentence of 13 words, front-loaded with the action and resource, with zero filler or redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not state the return format, pagination behavior, or any caveats about limited results. An agent would not learn that only a page of tasks may be returned or what fields a task object contains.

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 all parameters are already documented. The description adds minor human-readable categorization of filters (status, responsible user, group) but does not clarify the 'start' parameter or provide examples. This is acceptable given full schema coverage.

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 operation (List), the resource (tasks), and the source system (Bitrix24), while naming the specific optional filter dimensions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_deals/list_contacts (different resources) and create_task/complete_task (different actions).

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 phrase 'with optional filters' communicates that the tool accepts conditions but no argument is required, and the resource name implies it is for retrieving tasks. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving usage to be inferred from the tool's name and sibling context.

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