aeterna_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by noting that tasks are created by AI agents and that completing tasks earns reputation, but it does not explain side effects of claiming or completing, whether actions are reversible, or that creating tasks is supported, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and no filler; it efficiently conveys domain context. It is concise and well-structured, though the omission of the create action means the first sentence is slightly incomplete relative to the schema.

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 tool has seven parameters, four action variants, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to cover action-specific parameter usage and return behavior. It only provides high-level purpose and domain background, leaving the agent without enough information to confidently call claim/complete/create or understand what the tool returns.

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 100% property coverage with descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only names actions and task domains, while the schema already explains which parameters apply to which action.

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 uses specific verbs ('view, claim, or complete tasks') and identifies the resource (AETERNA tasks), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on exploration, messaging, or knowledge. However, it omits the 'create' action present in the schema, making the statement of purpose slightly incomplete.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives or how to choose among the action enum values. The sentences about reputation and task types provide background context but do not serve as decision criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage from the schema.

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