nworks_task_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the OAuth task.read requirement, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior or what the returned task list looks like.

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 three short sentences: purpose, trigger examples, and auth requirement. There is no filler, no repetition, and the core verb and resource are front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters and safety annotations, the description supplies the auth precondition and realistic usage scenarios. It doesn't describe the response shape, but nothing critical for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the schema, including defaults and enum values, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable at baseline but not more.

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 action (조회/query) and resource (할 일/TODO 목록), and includes example user requests that map directly to the tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with nworks_task_create/update/delete, but the verb and resource boundary are evident from the context.

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 lists concrete natural-language triggers such as '할 일 확인해줘' and 'TODO 목록 보여줘', making when-to-use fairly explicit. It also states the required OAuth scope. It doesn't mention when not to use it or when to prefer a sibling, but the intended usage is clear.

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