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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful context of targeting the local desktop API and confirming 'ready' status, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response format or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It directly names the action and target.

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 simple, parameterless health-check tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool checks and the expected state of the API.

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 provides no semantic burden. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter meaning.

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 a specific verb+resource+outcome: checking whether the local Super Productivity desktop API is reachable and ready. It differentiates from task-management siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named 'health' tool.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as 'health'. The description implies a readiness check but provides no explicit context, exclusion, or alternative recommendation.

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?

Annotations already indicate the tool is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation. The description adds that the marking is 'exactly' scoped to the supplied task ID, clarifying that no other tasks are affected, which is a behavioral trait not explicitly in the annotations. It does not describe edge cases like already-completed tasks, but the idempotent annotation covers that.

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 concise sentence with the action placed first and no redundant wording. Every word contributes to clarity, and it is appropriately sized for a function with one parameter.

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 simple mutation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and input. It could benefit from noting whether the task must be in a particular state or how this interacts with ongoing timers, but the idempotent and non-destructive annotations fill some gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explicitly mentioning 'supplied task ID', indicating the parameter's role in identifying the task to complete. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property name, though it does not provide further constraints or examples.

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 the specific verb 'Mark' with the resource 'task' and state 'completed', making the action unambiguous. It also specifies 'exactly the supplied task ID', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_task or stop_timer that affect task state differently.

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 clearly implies the tool is for marking a specific task as completed, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as stop_timer or plan_task_today. No exclusions or alternative references are given, leaving the comparison to inference.

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?

The description adds useful behavioral details beyond the idempotentHint annotation, notably 'create at most one marked task' and 'not planned for Today unless planToday=true'. It also clarifies the scope of what constitutes an existing task (native or MCP-marked), providing transparency not available from annotations alone.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. It consists of two sentences that convey the essential behavior without wasted words, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no schema descriptions. The description covers the core behavior but omits return value, behavior when multiple tasks already exist, and details for half the parameters. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps for a moderately complex 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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains the 'issue' parameter format (owner/repo#number or URL) and the effect of 'planToday', but leaves 'notes', 'title', and 'projectId' unexplained. Only 2 of 5 parameters are covered, which is insufficient for the low schema coverage.

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: find an existing task for a GitHub issue and create at most one if missing. The verb 'ensure' plus the specific resource (task for a GitHub issue) makes it distinct from sibling tools like search_tasks or complete_task.

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 usage context is implied rather than explicit: you use this tool when you want to guarantee a task exists for a GitHub issue. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the idempotent nature and the 'unless planToday=true' hint suggest typical workflows.

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?

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive nature. The description adds the behavioral detail that a null return indicates the timer is stopped, which is useful beyond the annotations. No contradictions noted.

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, front-loaded with the key action ('Return the task'), and every word is meaningful. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 such a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the behavior, including the null case. The annotations provide safety context, and the description adds the only missing behavioral detail. The tool is completely covered.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details.

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 ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('the task currently being tracked'), including the null case. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_task and list_today, which serve different purposes.

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: it is for retrieving the current tracked task or returning null if the timer is stopped. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as contrasting with list_today or search_tasks.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'local' and 'desktop API' context, which is useful, but it doesn't explain behavior in failure cases (e.g., what happens when the API is unreachable) or interpret 'ready'.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no wasted verbiage; it earns its place.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is minimally adequate for selection and invocation. However, it lacks details on what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators) and does not address the potential overlap with 'check_connection', leaving the context incomplete.

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 schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description correctly omits parameter details since none exist.

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 action ('Check') and resource ('local Super Productivity desktop API'), indicating it verifies reachability and readiness. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'check_connection', which may have overlapping functionality.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_connection'. The description simply states what it does without offering context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the behavioral nuance of filtering to 'explicitly planned' tasks, which is useful and does not contradict annotations.

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 concise sentence that communicates the essential purpose without any fluff. It earns its place by adding the 'explicitly planned' qualifier and the product context.

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 is simple, and the description is sufficient for a basic read-only list operation. It lacks mention of return format or default limit behavior, but given the strong annotations and low complexity, it covers the essential context.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation for the 'limit' and 'includeDone' parameters. While the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, their default values and exact filtering behavior are not described, leaving ambiguity.

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 specifies a clear action ('List') and resource ('tasks') with a distinct scope ('explicitly planned for Today'). This distinguishes it from siblings like search_tasks, which is likely a broader search, and get_current_task.

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: use this tool to retrieve tasks specifically planned for today. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for general search, use search_tasks).

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?

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds 'exactly' and 'optionally at an explicit ISO timestamp,' offering some behavioral context. However, it does not clarify whether existing items in Today are replaced or how the timestamp affects placement, leaving room for ambiguity beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action and key option without unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

With only two parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient for basic use, but it omits edge cases such as whether the task must exist, whether the plan is overwritten, or what the response contains. Given the annotations and sibling context, it is adequate but not 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning to both parameters: taskId is the task to place, and startAt is an explicit ISO timestamp. However, it does not specify behavior when startAt is omitted or validate timestamp format, leaving some gaps.

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 'Place' with a clear resource 'in Today' and explicitly mentions the supplied task ID and optional timestamp. This distinguishes it from siblings like start_task or complete_task, which focus on execution or completion rather than planning.

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 (to place a task in Today's plan) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling tool names provide context, but no direct guidance is given, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns task IDs, a behavioral detail not present in annotations. However, it doesn't disclose limitations like default source or matching behavior, so it is better than minimal but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences with no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description is somewhat sparse. It covers the primary search behavior and return type but omits details about search scope (source, includeDone) and pagination limit. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the 5 parameters. It only clarifies that query relates to title and projectId to project, while completely ignoring source, includeDone, and limit. This is insufficient compensation for a parameter-heavy tool.

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 function: searching for tasks by title or project. It also specifies the output (task IDs), which distinguishes it from other read-only tools like list_today or get_current_task. This is a specific verb+resource+scope combination, earning full marks.

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 when you need to find tasks and obtain IDs for follow-up actions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like list_today or plan_task_today. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it falls into implied usage.

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?

Annotations already declare it is mutating, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds that it sets the current task to exactly the supplied ID, implying replacement of any existing current task, which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it doesn't discuss error cases or effects on timer state.

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?

Single sentence, directly to the point, with no filler. Front-loaded with the action verb 'Start tracking.'

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the basic functionality. It could mention what happens to the previously tracked task or existing timer, but the word 'exactly' implies a clean replacement. Overall, adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'supplied task ID,' which confirms the parameter's role, but doesn't elaborate on format or constraints beyond the schema. Given only one parameter named taskId, the description provides minimal added meaning.

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 'Start tracking' and clearly indicates the resource: 'exactly the supplied task ID as the current task.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get_current_task (reads) and stop_timer (stops).

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 this tool is used when you want to set a specific task as current, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like plan_task_today or list_today. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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?

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the timer is stopped without selecting or changing another task, which is a valuable side effect to disclose. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the primary action and its key constraint. Every word contributes value; no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, parameterless tool with no output schema and strong annotations, this description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does and the important side-effect boundary (no task change).

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 takes no parameters, so the description naturally adds no parameter-specific semantics. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 names a specific verb ('stop') and resource ('Super Productivity timer'), and clarifies the scope ('without selecting or changing another task'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like start_task and complete_task.

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: to stop the current timer without altering task selection. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the behavior is specific enough that an agent can infer when this is the right action.

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