Task Transfer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short. It doesn't say whether a transfer creates a new task and what happens to the original, whether it is reversible, that a reason is mandatory for the transfer action, or what permissions or side effects are involved. Only the triggering condition is 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally sound. But the brevity reflects under-specification rather than density — the sentence is short because most of the tool's behavior simply isn't described.

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?

Five parameters, three distinct actions, no annotations, and no output schema — this definition needs substantial prose to be usable and delivers one clause. Two of the three actions are entirely undocumented, so an agent cannot confidently invoke anything but a plain transfer.

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 80%, which is just below the threshold where the schema alone justifies a baseline 3. The description contributes nothing about the parameters: it never mentions the action enum, the required reason for transfer, or the difference between task_id for history and session_id resolution. With a three-way enum driving the tool's behavior entirely undescribed, there is a real gap.

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?

It names a verb and resource ("transfer tasks") and adds a trigger condition, which is better than a bare tautology. But the schema exposes three distinct actions (transfer, check_scope, history), and the description covers none of them explicitly nor distinguishes this tool from siblings like mcp_m7_scope or mcp_m7_task_graph. An agent reading only this sentence would not know the tool also performs scope checks and history lookups.

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?

"when scope grows beyond original estimate" is a real when-to-use trigger, not just a restatement. However, there are no when-not conditions, no mention of the alternative tools in a 38-sibling namespace, and nothing to tell the agent when check_scope would be the appropriate action instead.

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