list_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: default filtering to root tasks and the hiddenChildren field that reports omitted matches — context an agent could not derive from annotations or schema.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then defaults, then response behavior. 'Returns task list with configurable fields' is mildly redundant with the schema's fields parameter, but nothing else is wasted.

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 7-param listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical default (root-only) and a returned field (hiddenChildren), which are the main non-obvious behaviors. Gaps remain around valid values for the fields array and ordering, but the essential calling context is present.

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 only 14%, so the description must carry weight. It explains children's default and effect and references configurable fields, and limit is documented in the schema, but tag, user, status, and especially the fields array (which fields are valid) get no elaboration — 'optional filters' is a blanket phrase rather than per-parameter meaning.

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 (List) and resource (tasks) and immediately identifies the tool's distinctive scope: ROOT tasks only by default. It does not name a sibling such as get_task or claim_next_task to differentiate, but the read/list semantics are unambiguous.

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?

It gives a concrete condition for one parameter ('children:true to include' non-root tasks), which is useful usage guidance. However, it never says when to use list_tasks versus get_task or claim_next_task, nor any prerequisites, so tool-level selection guidance is only implied.

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