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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'List all tasks' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this returns all tasks at once or uses pagination, what format the output takes, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality immediately apparent.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. For a list operation that likely returns multiple items, the description should address pagination behavior, output format, or at minimum acknowledge these as considerations. The single-sentence description leaves too many operational questions unanswered for effective tool selection and invocation.

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?

The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). The schema fully documents the 'planId' parameter with its type and description. The description mentions 'in a Planner plan' which aligns with the parameter but doesn't provide additional context about format, sourcing, or constraints.

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 all tasks') and the resource ('in a Planner plan'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-task' or 'get-task-details' which also retrieve task information, leaving some ambiguity about when to use this tool versus those alternatives.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get-task' (retrieves a single task) and 'get-task-details' (likely retrieves detailed information about a specific task), the agent has no indication whether this tool should be used for bulk retrieval versus single-item lookups, or what distinguishes it from other list operations like 'list-buckets' and 'list-plans'.

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