init_task

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

With no annotations, the description does add two meaningful traits: it is idempotent and it does nothing when TASK.md already exists (so no overwrite risk). It stops short of describing what happens if project_root is invalid, whether directories are created, or what it returns.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is terse, though the brevity leaves holes that the other dimensions penalize.

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?

A file-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter. Given the density of init/task siblings, the description should clarify what file is created, where relative to project_root, and what is returned.

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 single parameter project_root has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place this could be explained, and it never mentions the parameter. The agent must guess whether project_root is a path, a name, or must already exist.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Initialize TASK.md'. The 'if missing' qualifier makes the effect unambiguous, unlike the open-ended task_create siblings. It does not, however, distinguish itself from similar initializers such as init_plan, init_agents, or task_sync_md.

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?

'if missing (idempotent)' implies the call is safe at any point, but the description never states when to prefer this over task_create or init_plan, or what prerequisite the project_root must satisfy. Usage is only implicit.

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