quick_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool auto-creates a session, picks a provider, executes, and asks for projectPath if missing. However, it does not mention potential side effects of execution (e.g., that it may modify files, run builds, or make changes), which is important for a tool that executes tasks.

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 efficient: three sentences covering purpose, usage guidance, and a key behavioral note. It is front-loaded with the core value proposition and contains no filler or redundant 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?

The description covers the main purpose and usage context, but considering the tool executes tasks and has no annotations or output schema, it lacks critical context about side effects, confirmation steps, or what happens after execution. For a high-level action tool, more detail is needed to fully inform the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that projectPath may prompt the user if omitted, and that the provider is auto-picked. This goes beyond the plain schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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 tool's purpose: it's an easy way to use Cerebro by describing what to build or fix, and it auto-creates a session, picks a CLI provider, and executes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_session and execute_task by targeting cases where the user doesn't specify sessions or agents.

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 says when to use this tool: when the user gives natural language instructions like 'build me a website' or 'fix this bug' without specifying sessions or agents. It also provides a practical guideline to ask for projectPath if omitted. However, it does not name specific alternative tools to use in other cases, though the 'without specifying sessions or agents' clause implies them.

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