itasca_list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the tool read-only, describes ordering, explains persistence across GUI restarts, and lists returned fields and paging via total_count. It does not cover permission requirements or error behavior, but for a read-only listing tool that is a minor 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 first sentence front-loads the purpose and ordering, and subsequent sentences each add useful information about return fields, paging, persistence, and use cases. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not fully explain return values, yet it still enumerates key entry fields and total_count. Combined with clear usage guidance and paging semantics, it is complete for a two-parameter read-only listing tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents limit and skip_newest. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how they page over the full history using total_count, which helps an agent use the parameters correctly.

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 tracked by the bridge'), specifies ordering ('newest first'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by naming itasca_check_task_status and itasca_execute_task as alternatives for different tasks.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use it: recovering a task_id from an earlier session, seeing running or recently finished tasks, or checking bridge connectivity. It also names the sibling tools to use for task output and script submission, leaving little inference required.

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