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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. 'Add a new task' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, side effects, error conditions, rate limits, or what happens upon success. This leaves the agent completely in the dark about the tool's behavior beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 maximally concise at just three words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure length perspective, there's zero wasted space. Every word earns its place, though the place is too small for adequate documentation.

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 a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides only the most basic action statement without any of the necessary context about how to use the tool effectively, what it returns, or what constraints apply. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters (only 1 required), the description provides zero information about any parameters. The schema shows parameters for description, due date, priority, project, and tags, but the description doesn't mention any of these or provide context about their meaning, format, or relationships. This leaves all parameter semantics undocumented.

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 'Add a new task' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful differentiation. While it specifies the verb 'add' and resource 'task', it doesn't distinguish this tool from its siblings (get_next_tasks, mark_task_done) or provide any scope about what kind of tasks are being added. This is minimal information that barely exceeds a 1 score.

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 provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or alternatives. An agent would have to guess based on tool names alone, which is insufficient for effective tool selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Get a list of all pending tasks,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what 'pending' means (e.g., status-based filtering). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameters, return values, or behavioral context, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 has 2 parameters ('project' and 'tags') with 0% schema description coverage, meaning they are undocumented. The description doesn't mention these parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It should explain what 'project' and 'tags' are used for in filtering tasks.

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 'Get a list of all pending tasks' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('pending tasks'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_task' or 'mark_task_done', which are clearly different operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It implies a mutation operation (status change) but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the change is reversible, side effects (e.g., triggers notifications), or error conditions. The description adds no value beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 extremely concise (one short sentence) and front-loaded with the core action. There is zero wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks essential context: parameter details, behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error handling), and what 'done' entails in this system. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without guessing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. The single parameter 'identifier' is undocumented in both schema and description—no explanation of what identifies a task (e.g., ID, name, format) or how to obtain it. This leaves a critical gap for tool invocation.

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 action ('Mark') and resource ('a task') with the specific outcome ('as done (completed)'). It distinguishes from 'add_task' (creation) and 'get_next_tasks' (retrieval) by focusing on status update. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'done' means in this system's context.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot mark already completed tasks), or relationships with sibling tools like 'add_task' or 'get_next_tasks'.

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