taskwarrior_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, non-destructive read operations. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it mentions support for 'powerful querying' with Taskwarrior filter expressions and describes the return format options (markdown or JSON). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, usage guidelines, parameter summary, and examples. It's appropriately sized for a tool with multiple parameters and examples. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant given the detailed schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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's complexity (filtering capabilities), rich input schema with full coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (implied by response_format), the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, provides usage examples, and clarifies output formatting, leaving no significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 100% description coverage (all parameters are well-documented with descriptions, defaults, and constraints), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Args' section repeats the parameter name but adds minimal value beyond the schema. The examples provide helpful semantic context for filter usage, but this doesn't significantly elevate the score above baseline.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('list tasks', 'view tasks', 'search for specific tasks', 'get an overview') and identifies the resource ('from Taskwarrior'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like taskwarrior_add, taskwarrior_complete, etc., by focusing on listing/filtering rather than creating or modifying tasks.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to view tasks, search for specific tasks, or get an overview of pending work'), including specific examples like listing pending tasks or tasks for a project. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., taskwarrior_summary for aggregated views).

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