task_run

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that tasks wait for an agent, auto-manages BLOCKED status via dependencies, and encourages parallel execution. It does not contradict any 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose. The 'Rule' section is compact but references non-existent parameters, slightly reducing clarity. Otherwise, concise.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers agent waiting, dependencies, and parallelism. However, it omits how to specify priority/horizon if they are not parameters, and does not discuss error conditions or response format (though output schema exists).

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. However, the description instructs to set 'priority' and 'horizon', which are not present in the input schema, potentially misleading the agent. The description adds no helpful parameter meaning 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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'task in a team, waiting for an Agent to pick up and execute.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like task_create by emphasizing agent pickup and execution.

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 explicit rules for setting priority, horizon, and dependencies, and advises on parallel execution. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use compared to sibling tools like task_create or task_decompose.

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