decompose_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains key behaviors: subtasks can be linked with sequential dependencies, grouped by tag, archive_original controls whether the original task is archived, create_dependencies controls dependency creation, and priority inheritance is described. It also clarifies the data model around relationships. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 well-organized: a one-line summary, a supporting paragraph, a useful domain note, structured Args, and Returns. The sentence 'This tool helps break down complex tasks into manageable subtasks' is largely redundant with the first line, but overall the length is warranted given the number of parameters and the need to explain subtask structure.

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?

For a tool with five parameters including a nested subtask array, the description is highly complete. It covers all parameters, their defaults, the return value ('Decomposition result with created subtask IDs'), and the crucial domain context about Taskdog's lack of parent-child hierarchy. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values further, making this description sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides only titles and types (0% description coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: task_id, subtasks with sub-fields (name, estimated_duration, priority, tags), group_tag, create_dependencies, and archive_original. It also explains defaults and behavior of parameters, making the tool usable despite the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Decompose a large task into smaller subtasks,' a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes decompose_task from sibling tools like create_task or update_task by focusing on breaking down a task into subtasks with dependencies and grouping options.

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 clear context that the tool is for breaking down complex tasks into manageable subtasks. It also includes a domain note about Taskdog lacking parent-child relationships, recommending dependencies + tags + notes instead. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus other task-management tools.

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