list_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal important defaults: only pending tasks are shown by default and results are ordered by id. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, side effects, or the explicit effect of include_done beyond the implied default.

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?

Two compact sentences deliver all essential information with no filler. The most important scoping detail (project selection) is front-loaded, followed by default behavior and ordering.

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 simple list tool with two optional parameters, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it would benefit from stating the return shape, pagination behavior, or a clearer explanation of include_done=true. It is functional but not fully self-sufficient.

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 does: it explains that 'project' accepts an id or title and falls back to VIKUNJA_PROJECT, and 'Por defecto solo las pendientes' clarifies the default behavior tied to include_done. It does not explicitly name include_done, so a small gap remains.

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 action and resource: 'Tareas de un proyecto' (tasks of a project). It adds valuable specifics: project can be given by id or title, defaults to VIKUNJA_PROJECT, and results are only pending tasks ordered by id. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects or get_task by scope and return set.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to retrieve tasks for a project, identified by id or title, with a fallback to VIKUNJA_PROJECT when absent. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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