hub_task_list

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 adds valuable context that `total` always reflects the full matching count, so a page never reads as the whole backlog—a subtle but important behavioral nuance. It does not explicitly state side-effect safety, but the read-only nature of listing is strongly implied and no destructive hints are needed.

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 three sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the action, then delivers the critical pagination caveat, then names alternatives—every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, filters, paging semantics, and alternative tools, which is strong for a simple list operation with no output schema. Minor gaps remain: no mention of default page size or what fields appear in the returned tasks, but these are not critical for tool selection and invocation.

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 60%, and the description compensates by explaining how the parameters work together: 'Filter by project and/or status; page with limit/offset.' It also clarifies pagination semantics with the `total` remark, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare parameter descriptions. It doesn't cover `full` in detail, but the schema already describes that adequately.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('List backlog tasks') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming hub_task_get and hub_search as better alternatives for finding a single named task. It also covers the key filtering and paging capabilities, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is present: filters are listed ('project and/or status'), paging is mentioned ('limit/offset'), and a clear exclusion is given—'Looking for ONE task you can name? hub_task_get by id, or hub_search by keyword—both beat listing and scanning.' This tells the agent exactly when to avoid this tool.

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