Add a task to the user's RadTask cockpit. Use this to capture anything the user wants done or tracked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | The task in plain English | |
| project | No | Optional project to group it under |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description must disclose behavior. Only states 'Add a task' which implies write operation, but no mention of side effects, permissions, reliability, or return values. Inadequate for a mutation tool.
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 sentences, front-loaded with action, no redundant words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Simple tool (2 params, no output schema). Description covers purpose and usage adequately. Lacks behavioral details (e.g., idempotency, confirmation), but given low complexity, it is mostly complete.
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 100% with clear descriptions for 'title' and 'project'. Description adds general context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states verb 'Add', resource 'task to RadTask cockpit', and scope 'anything user wants done or tracked'. Distinguishes from sibling tools (complete_task, list_tasks) as it focuses on 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?
Provides clear guidance on when to use ('capture anything the user wants done or tracked') but lacks explicit exclusions or comparison to siblings. Context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create, list, and complete tasks. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_task, list_tasks, complete_task) with snake_case.
3 tools is minimal but appropriate for a focused task management server; each tool serves a necessary function without being overly sparse.
Covers basic create, list, and status update (complete) but lacks update and delete operations, which are notable gaps for full task lifecycle management.