List tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: result ordering (newest first), pagination, and the OR-within-filter / AND-across-filter composition rule, which is not present in the annotations and only hinted at in the schema. It stops short of describing result shape, but with annotations carrying safety it is above baseline.

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?

Three sentences, each load-bearing: scope+ordering, filter enumeration+use cases, and filter composition logic. The core purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

For an 8-parameter, no-required-args read tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, ordering, pagination and retrieval use cases, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. It is slightly thin on what a returned task record contains (it only implies task_id and spend fields), but that is a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description contributes the cross-parameter combination rule ('comma-separated values are OR'd; different filters are AND'd') and enumerates the filter dimensions, which the schema only documents individually — genuine added meaning over the per-parameter text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the account's past generation tasks'), plus ordering ('newest first') and pagination. It distinguishes itself from sibling listers (list_resources, list_models) and links to the downstream consumers of the returned task_id (get_task, extend_video, upscalers).

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?

Explicitly states two concrete use cases — recovering an earlier generation's task_id for get_task/extend_video/upscalers, and reviewing recent spend — which tells the agent when to reach for this tool rather than generating anew. Naming the alternatives that consume task_id makes the routing condition unambiguous.

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