task_auto_match

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior (analyzes match, returns sorted recommendations) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, safe, or requires specific permissions. Not misleading, but incomplete.

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, no filler. The first sentence immediately conveys the purpose, and the second adds detail on input analysis and output sorting. Every word 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 output schema exists, the description appropriately covers input (team_id) and output (sorted match recommendations). It does not mention prerequisites or edge cases, but the overall context is sufficient for a matching 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?

The single parameter team_id has a schema description ('Team ID or name'), providing complete coverage. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'task-Agent matching suggestions', specifies the action 'Get', the resource 'pending unassigned tasks and idle/offline Agents', and the output sorting by match_score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agent_list or task_create.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as tasks being unassigned or agents being idle/offline, nor does it advise whether to use it before direct assignment via task_update.

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