tasks_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return format ('JSON list') and a behavioral detail ('latest per id'), which adds value. However, it doesn't address important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with the 'project_root' parameter. The description provides some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every element ('List tasks', 'optionally filter by state', 'Returns JSON list (latest per id)') serves a purpose. It could be slightly more structured but achieves conciseness without wasted words.

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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema means return values don't need explanation, but the description should better explain parameter usage and behavioral context. It covers basic purpose and return format but leaves parameter semantics and usage guidelines underdeveloped.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions filtering by 'state' but doesn't explain what states are available or how filtering works. It completely ignores the 'project_root' parameter. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's inferable from parameter names, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), and mentions optional filtering by state. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'tasks_upsert' (create/update) and 'tasks_transition' (change state), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'tasks_pick_next' or 'tasks_autogen_from_entities'. The purpose is specific but sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tasks_pick_next' (which likely selects specific tasks) or 'progress_summary' (which might summarize task states). It mentions optional filtering by state but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what alternatives exist for different query needs.

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