list_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns a task list in dictionary format, which is helpful, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether results are paginated, or how filtering logic works (AND/OR). For a list/filter tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the filtering capabilities earlier, but overall it's efficient and organized.

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 moderate complexity (5 filtering parameters), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is reasonably complete. It thoroughly documents all parameters and mentions the return format. The main gap is lack of behavioral context (permissions, pagination, filtering logic) which would be helpful despite the output schema.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates excellently by providing clear semantic explanations for all 5 parameters. It specifies allowed values for 'status' and 'priority', explains that 'tag' and 'project' use exact matching, and provides default/maximum values for 'limit'. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 as '列出工作流库中的任务' (list tasks in the workflow library), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_tasks' or 'get_today_tasks', which appear to have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 like 'search_tasks' or 'get_today_tasks'. It simply describes what the tool does without any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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