task_create

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, which aligns with creation. The description adds that tasks 'survive across sessions,' but does not explicitly detail side effects, permissions, or idempotency. More behavioral traits could be 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?

The description is concise with a clear opening statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is well-organized and front-loaded.

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 creation workflow by referencing task_list for duplicates. Given the output schema exists and parameter list is thorough, it is mostly complete. Could briefly mention relationship to other task tools like task_claim or task_complete, but not necessary.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all parameters in the Args section, adding meaningful details: 'Short imperative description', 'Context, acceptance criteria', 'What done looks like', and default handling for project. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Create a task for yourself or another agent to pick up,' specifying a verb ('create') and resource ('task'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like task_list, task_get, etc.

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 tells when to use ('discrete unit of work that should be tracked, may be done by a different agent, or needs to survive across sessions') and advises to 'Check task_list() for duplicates before creating,' providing clear usage context.

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