claude_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It only states that Claude will modify files directly, which is a key behavioral disclosure. However, it does not mention safety, reversibility, permissions, whether the tool is destructive, or what happens to existing changes. Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence that is concise and gets the point across. It front-loads the core action ('Give Claude Code a task to complete') and includes examples. However, it could be slightly more structured to improve scannability.

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 tool has 3 parameters (2 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain return values, whether the task is synchronous or asynchronous, or if additional confirmation or output is expected. Key behavioral details are missing, making the description incomplete for a file-modifying tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Each parameter is documented in the schema, and the tool description does not elaborate on their usage or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: giving a task to Claude Code to complete, with specific examples (write code, refactor, fix bug). It also notes that Claude modifies files directly, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like claude_ask (for questions) or claude_review (for reviewing).

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 implies usage for code modification tasks through examples, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like claude_ask, claude_review, or claude_explain. No explicit context or exclusion criteria are provided.

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