task_action_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It successfully explains the semantics of actions (retry=re-execute, complete=manual resolution, cancel=no action needed) and conditional requirements, but lacks disclosure of side effects, return values, or safety profile (e.g., whether resolve operations are reversible).

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 optimally structured with a clear purpose statement followed by an 'Operation modes' section that efficiently delineates the two modes and their associated actions. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the input parameters and operational modes but fails to describe what the 'list' mode returns or the success/failure behavior of the 'resolve' mode, leaving gaps in contextual completeness for a tool handling task lifecycle operations.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the operational semantics of enum values (e.g., clarifying that 'complete' means manually resolved and 'cancel' means no action needed) and explicitly noting conditional requirements for taskId and action that are not enforced in the schema's required fields.

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 it manages 'human action lists' specifically for 'tasks AI could not resolve' (AIが解決できなかったタスク), using specific verbs (管理する, 一覧表示, 対応操作). This effectively distinguishes it from siblings like task_submit (new tasks) and task_status (monitoring).

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?

Provides clear operational guidance through the two-mode structure (list vs resolve) and explains when each parameter is required (mode=resolve時に必須). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like task_submit to clarify when to escalate to human action versus initial submission.

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