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 behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about pagination, result ordering, whether completed tasks are included, or auth requirements. Listing is implicitly a read, but that is an inference rather than a stated trait.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and scope come first. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it is terse to the point of being sparse.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of return-value and safety information, and it supplies neither. For a simple list tool the burden is light, but an agent still cannot tell what comes back or whether filtering applies.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter-level gaps exist to compensate for.

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?

States a specific verb (列出) and resource (任务) with an explicit scope: the user's default to-do list. It distinguishes itself from list_emails and list_calendar_events by resource, but never names a sibling or clarifies why this differs from any other task-listing path.

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 phrase '默认待办事项列表' hints that non-default lists are out of scope, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as list_calendar_events or get_user_schedules. The agent must infer the calling context entirely.

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