list_subtasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the two categories (active and recent) and what each contains, which is good. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the call is read-only. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the function, breaking down the output structure, and providing a usage analogy. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description is quite complete. It specifies the scope (session-level for recent), the number of recent items (10), and the fields in active. Minor gaps: it does not clarify if 'active' includes all submitted tasks or only those not yet completed, nor does it mention ordering or global vs. per-session. Still, it is largely sufficient.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The absence of parameters is clearly reflected, and the description does not attempt to invent any. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, but the description remains concise and complete, earning a 5.

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 specifies the verb 'Return' and resource 'status of execute_subtask calls', distinguishing active and recent categories. It provides concrete details (elapsed time, model, prompt excerpt, target file for active; last 10 for recent), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings like stop_subtask or inspect_status.

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 explicitly states 'Use this to monitor parallel execute_subtask calls' and compares it to '/tasks for background agents', giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools like inspect_status, so it misses some exclusion guidance.

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