task_decompose

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that auto_assign is not yet implemented, which is helpful. However, it does not describe creation behavior, side effects, or permissions needed. The mention of templates and manual subtasks provides some behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: four sentences with no wasted words. The verb 'Decompose' is front-loaded, and the structure clearly presents the two approaches and template list. Every sentence 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 tool has 6 parameters (2 required), an output schema, and no nested objects, the description is fairly complete. It covers the core functionality and template options. It could be improved by mentioning output format or constraints on subtask count, but the output schema handles the former.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the two approaches (template vs manual) and listing available template values. It also notes auto_assign limitations, providing additional parameter context beyond the schema.

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: decomposing a large task into a parent task and subtasks. It distinguishes two approaches (template vs manual), making the function specific and differentiating it from sibling tools like 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?

The description implies usage for task decomposition and lists two approaches, but does not explicitly guide when to use which approach or provide alternatives. No exclusion criteria or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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