Tasker Run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does add meaningful context by disclosing the broadcast mechanism and the DGM Dispatch profile requirement (an auth/setup constraint the schema cannot express). It does not say whether the call blocks, how failures surface, or what a broadcast actually does if the target app is absent, which are exactly the traits an agent needs here.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The trailing parenthetical pushes key setup information into a docs reference rather than stating it inline, which is a small structural weakness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a 4-parameter, no-annotation tool the description omits parameter meaning, blocking behavior, and failure modes. An agent could invoke it only by guessing at device/params/wait_result.

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 description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not: it implies 'task' but says nothing about device, params, or wait_result (including the notable default of 0). The profile requirement is a useful side note but not parameter semantics.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Fire a Tasker task via broadcast'), which is specific enough to distinguish it from tasker_lookup (read) and run_routine (different subsystem). It does not explicitly name its closest sibling tasker_lookup, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives one real prerequisite ('needs the DGM Dispatch profile') plus a docs pointer, which is useful invocation context. It never says when to prefer this over tasker_lookup or when a task should be run via another path, so it stays at implied usage.

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