tasks_add

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses key behaviors: dependencies must exist and be acyclic, done/dropped unblocks, and the task becomes ready once no blockers remain. This adds valuable context about side effects and constraints.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, each sentence providing essential information: the action, dependency semantics, and ready condition. No wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (dependencies, project scoping, plan integration), the description covers the core behavioral rules sufficiently. No output schema exists, but the description explains the primary success condition (task becomes ready) and dependency constraints, making it complete for an agent to reason about.

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 description adds significant meaning to depends_on by specifying validation rules (existence, cycle prevention) and the unblocking condition, which the schema does not cover. It also clarifies the 'ready' state relative to depends_on, enriching the schema's generic parameter descriptions.

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 action and resource: 'Add a task to the dependency-aware ready queue.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tasks_update (modify) and tasks_claim (claim), focusing on creation with dependency semantics.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when adding a task with dependencies that participates in the ready queue. It also explains the 'ready' condition and plan-step exclusion, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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