rentme-tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does convey that this is a read-only status check and lists the expected status values, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior for missing/unknown tasks, whether both id and riferimento_ai can be supplied together, or any error/return conventions.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then adds statuses and lookup methods. There is no filler or redundant repetition of the tool name.

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 low complexity of the tool—two optional parameters, no output schema, no nested objects—the description covers the core behavior, the possible status values, and both lookup keys. It is slightly incomplete in not stating what happens when no task matches or whether the result is just the status string, but it is adequate for selection and basic 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating that the tool searches 'per id interno o per riferimento_ai', which communicates that the two parameters are alternative lookup keys and that riferimento_ai was provided at creation time. This relationship is not explicit in the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Controlla lo stato di avanzamento di un task' and enumerates the possible statuses. It also clarifies the two lookup modes, making it clearly distinct from the sibling rentme_create_task, whose purpose is creation.

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 makes the use case clear: checking the status of an already-created Rentme task via either internal id or external riferimento_ai. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of rentme_create_task', but the contrast between checking and creating is implied enough given the single sibling.

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

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

In assenza di annotazioni, la descrizione rivela il comportamento chiave: il task viene 'pubblicato' su una bacheca e 'collaboratori umani registrati possono candidarsi' dietro compenso, quindi non è un'operazione digitale immediata. Non dichiara però esplicitamente eventuali irreversibilità, costi o assenza di garanzia di completamento.

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?

Tre frasi brevi, con l'azione principale in testa e le istruzioni d'uso/prerequisito subito dopo. Nessun contenuto ridondante o ripetizione di ciò che è già nello schema.

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?

Per un tool di creazione con 10 parametri, nessuna annotazione e nessun output schema, la descrizione copre bene scopo e contesto, ma non dice cosa restituisce la chiamata né indica esplicitamente il flusso successivo con rentme_check_task_status. Alcune informazioni sono recuperabili solo dallo schema, ad esempio tramite riferimento_ai.

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?

Lo schema descrive tutti i 10 parametri con coverage 100%, quindi il baseline è 3. La descrizione non aggiunge dettagli sui parametri oltre agli esempi di operazioni fisiche e al riferimento a rentme_list_skills, informazione già presente nella descrizione di skill_id nello schema.

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?

La descrizione inizia con 'Pubblica una richiesta di operazione fisica nel mondo reale ... sulla bacheca Rentme', indicando verbo e risorsa specifici. Rispetto ai sibling rentme_list_skills e rentme_check_task_status, è immediatamente chiaro che questo strumento crea un annuncio di lavoro umano.

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?

La frase 'Usa questo strumento quando serve far compiere un'azione fisica reale da una persona' fornisce una condizione d'uso esplicita. Inoltre, 'chiama prima rentme_list_skills per conoscere gli id disponibili' dà un prerequisito chiaro per un caso d'uso comune.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a retrieval operation ('Ritorna') with no side effects, and specifies that the result is a catalog of skills with their ids. It does not mention auth or error cases, but for a simple no-parameter list operation this is not a material gap.

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 two short sentences. The first sentence states the core behavior and output; the second sentence gives targeted sequencing guidance. Every part earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema list tool, the description tells the agent what it returns, where it fits in the workflow, and which sibling it precedes. Nothing essential is missing for correct 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers input. The description adds useful context by explaining why the output matters ('per sapere quale skill_id passare'), which helps the agent use the returned identifiers correctly.

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 a concrete verb ('Ritorna') and a specific resource ('catalogo delle competenze disponibili su Rentme'), and notes that each entry includes its id. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which check task status or create tasks.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to call this tool PRIMA di rentme_create_task when a specific skill must be associated with a task, in order to learn the skill_id to pass. This is direct, actionable guidance about when to use it and how it relates to a named sibling.

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