get_task_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 states it 'retrieves' tasks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, or affects server state. The description mentions the return format but lacks details about pagination, error handling, or what happens when no tasks match. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. The opening sentence efficiently states the core purpose. While the parameter documentation is thorough, it's appropriately detailed given the 0% schema coverage. Some minor verbosity exists in the Returns section, but overall it's front-loaded and efficient.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It thoroughly documents parameters but lacks behavioral context about authentication, rate limits, or error conditions. The return format is described but without schema details. For a read operation with filtering/sorting capabilities, more context about constraints and behavior would be needed for full completeness.

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?

The description provides detailed parameter documentation in the Args section, explaining each parameter's purpose and default values. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this documentation fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It clarifies that 'status' filters tasks, 'sort' orders by last update time, and 'number' limits results. However, it doesn't explain the 'ctx' parameter's purpose, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 ('retrieves') and resource ('list of tasks being managed by the server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_task_result' (which retrieves specific task results) and 'list_agents' (which deals with agents rather than tasks). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over 'get_task_result' for task details, or how it relates to other task management operations. The only implicit usage is for listing tasks, but there's no explicit context about prerequisites, timing, or alternatives.

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