list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the default filter (open tasks), the sort order (priority then due date), and the result cap ('limit up to 100'), which warns the agent that output can be truncated.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the most important information (subject, default scope, ordering) comes first. Every clause carries content an agent needs.

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?

For a six-parameter, fully documented read tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, ordering, and truncation risk adequately. It falls short only on return shape and whether the limit implies no pagination, which an agent might wonder about with up to 100 results.

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 parameters are already fully documented. The description only enumerates filter names and the limit ceiling, both of which are in the schema; it adds no format or interaction detail (e.g., how search combines with other filters), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('List tasks') plus scope details: open by default, sorted by priority then due date. It is clearly distinguishable from get_task, create_task, and update_task by name and semantics, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It implies the usage context by saying results are 'open ones by default' and that a done filter exists, which lets an agent infer how to retrieve completed tasks. However, it never states when to use this instead of get_task or how to page through large result sets, leaving routing to inference.

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