list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It does disclose one real trait — results are 'simplified' task objects — but says nothing about default limit, ordering, pagination, or permission needs for a read endpoint spanning up to 100 records.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the return shape and use case following in logical order. Every sentence carries information.

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 simple read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage on parameters, the description covers action, filters, and return shape adequately. Only default-limit/pagination behavior is left unaddressed.

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 all four parameters (limit, is_closed, project_id, responsible_id) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter dimensions at a high level without adding syntax, defaults, or combination semantics.

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') and adds that it returns simplified task objects, which implicitly contrasts with the detail-oriented siblings get_task / get_task_details. The purpose is clear, though it never names a sibling 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?

'Use this to find tasks by user, project, or status' gives a clear positive use context that maps to the available filters. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g., get_task for a single task) or stating exclusions, so it does not reach the 5 bar.

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