Load Task Context

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so part of the description ('non-idempotent', 'no network access') restates structured data. It does add value beyond them by disclosing what state is touched ('may update task or usage state') and a non-obvious negative guarantee ('does not delete durable memories').

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?

Two sentences, no waste, with the core action front-loaded and usage/behavioral caveats packed into the second sentence. Every clause carries information.

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 2-parameter, non-destructive mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers trigger, alternative, state mutation, idempotency, and network behavior. It stops short of describing what the returned 'context packet' contains, a minor gap given no output schema is declared.

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 100%, so both 'task' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Start or resume a task') and resource ('durable project memories and current working state'), and explicitly routes the focused-lookup case to the sibling 'search'. An agent can distinguish it from search, resume, and checkpoint without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete triggers ('before project changes or after a context reset') and names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('use search for a focused lookup'). Nothing about when-to-use is left to inference.

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