タスク作成

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 mentions that specifying 'parent' creates a subtask, but this behavior is already documented in the input schema. It does not disclose other relevant traits such as the write nature of the operation, potential side effects, or default tasklist behavior beyond the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already states.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and immediate behavioral nuance. There is no fluff, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal but not critically insufficient. It states the core function and subtask behavior, while relying on the schema for parameter details. However, it does not provide broader workflow guidance (e.g., how to obtain a tasklist ID) or clarify return behavior, leaving some gaps for an agent evaluating usage context.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only references 'parent' indirectly and adds no semantic detail beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions. It does not clarify relationships between parameters or provide examples, but the schema already handles this adequately.

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 action ('タスクを作成する' - create a task) and identifies the key distinction that specifying 'parent' makes it a subtask. This unambiguously separates it from sibling tools like create-tasklist, which creates a task list instead.

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 creating a task but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. No exclusions, prerequisites, or references to related tools (e.g., list-tasklists) are given, so the usage context is only inferred from the purpose.

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