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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the operation and filters, but does not state whether results are paginated, ordered, or limited, what task fields are returned, or any scope/authorization context. For a tool with no output schema or annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that starts with the verb and resource, then adds the filter conditions. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it an efficient definition.

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 tool is simple with two optional parameters and no nested objects, and the description covers the resource and filters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves the return shape, pagination and ordering behavior, and default result set unspecified — the main missing context an agent would need.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explicitly explaining both parameters as optional filters ('status or assignee'). It adds the semantic role of each parameter and their optionality, which goes beyond the bare schema property definitions, though it lacks formatting examples beyond the enum values.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('tasks from the team tracker'), and identifies the optional filters by status or assignee. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from siblings like get_task (single task retrieval) and create_task (creation).

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 clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a collection of tasks, with optional filtering, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no guidance about using get_task for a specific task or search_docs for document searches, so the routing is left to inference.

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