list_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions optional filtering and gives examples, but it omits important behavioral details like pagination, result ordering, and how filters combine. The example 'Tasks assigned to Alice' is misleading because the parameter assigned_to_id expects a UUID, not a name, which the schema clarifies but the description does not. This lowers transparency.

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 two sentences long and highly efficient. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second provides concrete examples. There is no wasted text, and the structure front-loads the core function.

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?

With 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers most filter types but misses limit and project_id. It also does not describe the return format or pagination behavior. For a list tool with no annotations, this is a moderate gap, making it minimally complete but not comprehensive.

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 adds natural-language examples that map user intent to filter types (e.g., 'high priority open tasks' to priority and is_completed), but it does not add any new meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters. It also omits limit and project_id entirely.

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: 'List tasks with optional filtering by completion, priority, type, assignee, or search term.' This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_subtasks, list_task_statuses, and list_task_types by naming the core resource and filter dimensions.

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 practical usage examples such as 'Show my tasks' and 'Show high priority open tasks,' which illustrate common scenarios and implied triggers. It clearly indicates when to use the tool (listing/filtering tasks) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives for subtasks or task statuses.

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