tokportal_list_comment_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions that execution_blocked and execution_block_reason identify tasks paused by inactive TokPortal Coverage, and that reads remain available while execution is paused. This is useful detail that annotations do not capture, and it does not contradict any annotation.

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 compact at three sentences, with the most critical information (purpose) front-loaded. The second and third sentences add specific behavioral context about execution_blocked fields without being verbose. It earns its length, though the first sentence repeats the tool's name.

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, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the purpose (listing owned tasks) and key state information (execution_blocked, execution_block_reason). For a read-only, idempotent list operation with 4 fully described parameters, this is reasonably complete. It could hint at filtering semantics (e.g., how saved_account_id interacts with owned tasks) but is not critically incomplete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all four parameters (page, status, per_page, saved_account_id) with their types, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain how status filtering works (e.g., comma-separated list format is already in schema), nor does it clarify the relationship between parameters. Baseline 3 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 clearly states 'List comment tasks' and further specifies 'Lists owned comment tasks.' This provides a specific verb (list) and resource (owned comment tasks), distinguishing it from sibling tools like tokportal_get_comment_task (single task) and tokportal_create_comment_tasks (creation). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools in the sibling list.

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 context about execution_blocked and execution_block_reason fields for paused tasks, but it does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use list_comment_tasks vs get_comment_task). It implies usage for listing owned tasks but lacks exclusion criteria or alternative selection hints.

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