agent_list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the tool acts as the local credential-store identity (auth context) and that returned content is untrusted third-party data requiring prompt-injection caution. It omits pagination/result-limit behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by auth and safety context. Nothing is wasted, though the security warning is slightly general rather than tool-specific.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and all three optional filters are documented in the schema. The description supplies the identity/safety context that structured fields cannot, leaving only pagination behavior unaddressed.

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 all three filters are already documented in the schema; the description's 'assigned to you or created by you' only loosely maps to the role parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List tasks') with a clear scope ('assigned to you or created by you') that cleanly separates it from agent_get_task, agent_create_task, and agent_broadcast_task. An agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 scope statement implies when to use it (listing your own tasks), but there is no explicit when-not or pointer to alternatives such as agent_get_task for a single task or agent_list_broadcasts for broadcasts. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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