agent_list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or any details about pagination or results. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about side effects and safety.

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, well-formed sentence with no superfluous words. The verb and object are front-loaded, making the purpose instantly clear.

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 simplicity (4 params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information on pagination, sorting, or how the tool interacts with the many task-related siblings, which could lead to confusion.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'role' parameter by mentioning assignee/requester, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond what the schema already provides. Marginal added value.

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 action (list tasks) and the scope (assigned to you or created by you). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like agent_create_task, agent_get_task, and agent_update_task.

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 implies when to use the tool (to list personal tasks), but it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or mention alternatives. Adding direction like 'Use this for your tasks; for other task operations, see create_task, get_task, etc.' would improve it.

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