List tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: newest-first ordering and the fields each task carries. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior for the page parameter or that results are scoped by engine/task_type defaults.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence fragment with zero filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but every phrase carries information.

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 a three-parameter read tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields is valuable. But the description omits that defaults (engine=google, task_type=checker) mean a bare call returns only Google index checks, which is a meaningful behavioral gap an agent would otherwise miss.

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 67%, with enums documented for engine and task_type; the page parameter is undocumented. The description's phrase 'indexing or index-check' merely echoes the task_type enum and adds no new meaning about filtering, defaults, or paging.

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 resource (tasks) with scope (indexing or index-check), ordering (newest first) and returned fields (size, processed, indexed counts). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_index or get_report.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as get_report for detailed results or check_index for triggering a check. Usage is only implied by the word 'Recent'.

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