task_list

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses ordering (oldest first), output truncation (80 chars), pagination behavior (next_cursor), and a dependency (requires the fleet Postgres). This is valuable operational detail not present in annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core action and scope, then pagination, then usage guidance. No wasted words; all sentences carry operational value.

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?

The description covers most critical aspects: what it returns (pending, next_cursor), pagination, a sibling alternative, and a dependency. However, the omission of the required 'app_id' semantics leaves a gap that could lead to misuse. No output schema exists, so the description should be more explicit about parameters.

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 explains the 'agent' default and the cursor usage for pagination. However, it does not explain the required 'app_id' parameter (its role is unclear) nor the 'limit' parameter beyond its default. Since schema descriptions are absent (0% coverage), the description only partially compensates for this gap.

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 states a specific action ('List tasks still waiting in the Kart queue') with a resource (Kart queue) and a scope (for one worker agent). It clearly differentiates from task_status by noting that it answers 'what is queued to run' and directing to task_status for full detail.

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?

Explicitly indicates when to use this tool (to see queued tasks) and when to use the alternative (task_status for one task's full detail). It also mentions a prerequisite (requires the fleet Postgres), which helps the agent decide if it can use it.

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