crosspad_task

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description documents a 'cancel' action that stops a running task — a state-changing operation. This is a direct contradiction between the description and annotations, so the transparency score must be very low.

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, front-loaded with the action verbs and supported task types. Every sentence carries information, and there is no filler or repetition of the schema.

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 description covers the full action surface, the task handle format, result retention, and the client-capability condition, while the output schema handles return shape. It is nearly complete, though the annotation contradiction undermines overall reliability.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the task_<n> handle pattern and the 1 h retention window, but those facts already appear in the schema defail. No meaningful extra parameter semantics are provided 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 opens with a specific verb set ('Poll, wait on, cancel or list') tied to a concrete resource ('long-running crosspad tasks') and enumerates the task types it manages. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like crosspad_build or crosspad_flash, which create tasks rather than manage them.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when the client does not support the MCP tasks capability. It does not spell out exclusions or alternative sibling tools, but the clear context is enough for an agent to route correctly.

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