list_tasks

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates scope behavior: full records, whole graph, and both open and done tasks. It does not describe auth, rate limits, or pagination, but for a straightforward read/list tool it provides meaningful 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 extremely compact and front-loaded: it states scope, record detail, status coverage, and sibling alternatives in two short clauses. Every word contributes to selection and invocation decisions.

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 combined with the fully documented schema and output schema is sufficient for correct tool selection and invocation. It clarifies when to choose list_tasks versus its closest siblings, and the optional parameters are adequately explained in the schema.

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?

Both parameters (branch and project) are already fully documented in the schema, including the note that the backend decides how branch is used and that project has a server default. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies because the schema coverage is complete.

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 states exactly what the tool returns: every task as full records across the whole graph, including open and done tasks. It also distinguishes the tool from its siblings by naming list_ready/list_planning and get_task as alternatives, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 explicit routing guidance: use list_ready/list_planning for scannable working subsets and get_task for a single task. By implication, list_tasks is the tool for exhaustive, full-graph retrieval, which is clear and actionable.

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