tasker

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds the important fact that the host executes the returned skill and the underlying task is never performed, which goes beyond the safety annotations and clarifies the tool's non-execution behavior.

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 short sentences, no filler. However, the first sentence is confusing and not clearly front-loaded, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what is returned. It mentions 'returned skill' but does not describe its form or how the host should use it, nor does it clarify what 'underlying task' means. For a one-parameter tool the coverage is minimal but still leaves gaps for correct invocation.

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 0% and the only parameter 'task' has no description. The description hints that the input is a 'rough task assignment' but does not specify format, content, or constraints, leaving the 200,000-character string parameter largely unexplained.

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 says 'Prepare Tasker to optimize a rough task assignment,' which largely restates the tool name 'tasker' and does not define a specific verb+resource that an agent can distinguish from siblings like prompt_pipeline or get_skill. The added 'optimize a rough task assignment' is vague and does not clarify what the tool actually produces or how it differs from other skill-related tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer whether this is appropriate for a given task versus using list_skills or prompt_pipeline.

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