Break complex work into structured subtasks, create them in bulk with dependency graphs, and update task lists using append, overwrite, selective, or clear modes.
Split a complex task into a structured set of smaller tasks. Supports bulk creation with dependency graphs and various update modes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tasks | Yes | ||
| updateMode | Yes | ||
| globalAnalysisResult | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it omits the most important trait: the updateMode enum includes destructive values ('overwrite', 'clearAllTasks') that can replace or wipe existing tasks. Bulk creation of up to 100 tasks and dependency-graph handling are mentioned, but the destructive modes and their consequences are never disclosed.
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 tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly a symptom of missing detail rather than disciplined editing.
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?
This is a complex tool with nested task objects, dependency arrays, and a destructive update-mode enum, plus no annotations and no output schema. A two-sentence description leaves the agent without the mode semantics or safety context it needs to call the tool correctly.
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 the parameters, yet it only alludes to 'dependency graphs' and 'various update modes'. The four enum values for updateMode (append, overwrite, selective, clearAllTasks) are never explained, and the per-task fields (agent, notes, relatedFiles, verificationCriteria, implementationGuide) go entirely unaddressed.
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 specific verb and resource: 'Split a complex task into a structured set of smaller tasks.' That is clear enough for an agent to understand the operation. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like plan_task or analyze_task, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use split_tasks versus plan_task, analyze_task, or update_task, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The phrase 'various update modes' gestures at behavior but never tells the agent which mode to pick or when.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.