ensure_task_fields

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: fix=true applies defaults to fill missing fields, while fix=false reports only. It also names the default checked fields. But it leaves out details like required permissions, reversibility, and behavior with custom required_fields that lack defaults.

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 front-loaded with purpose and context, then organized into a clear Args block. Every line earns its place by adding necessary detail for the six parameters, with no filler or redundant repetition of schema types.

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?

Given an output schema is present and the description covers purpose, defaults, and fix behavior, this is largely complete. Minor gaps remain around edge-case behavior, such as what happens when fix=true but no default is provided for a custom required field.

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 Args block compensates for the schema's 0% description coverage by explaining each parameter's meaning, default value, and conditional usage based on fix. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, such as 'used only if fix=true' and the default field list.

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 opening phrase 'Check (and optionally fix) that tasks have required fields set' uses a specific verb and resource, immediately clarifying the tool's role. It distinguishes itself from sibling update_task by focusing on compliance checks and optional batch defaults, not arbitrary edits.

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?

Provides clear context with 'Useful for sprint compliance' and explains the default checked fields. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over update_task, bulk_update_tasks, or when to avoid using fix mode.

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