taskops_filed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add valuable context with 'The board stores the pointer, never the prose — every reader renders it from its own clone,' which explains the storage model beyond the schema. Yet it leaves unspecified whether registration is idempotent, what happens on duplicate paths, and what output or errors are returned.

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 exactly two sentences: the first compactly packs the required parameters and the prerequisite into a single line, and the second explains the pointer-based storage model. Every clause is purposeful with no filler or redundancy.

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 core concept is well covered: the tool requires an existing commit, stores only a pointer, and renders from each reader's clone, with a sensible milestone default. It does not discuss output/return behavior or error cases, but for a simple registration operation with fully documented parameters this is a minor gap rather than a critical one.

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% and each parameter already has a descriptive comment, so the description's inline list 'path=, title=, sha=, milestone=' adds no new semantic detail beyond restating names. The milestone default is also repeated from the schema, so the description does not elevate parameter understanding.

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 opens with an explicit verb ('Register') and a specific resource ('a report you already COMMITTED under .taskops/reports/'), immediately clarifying that this tool records a commit pointer rather than storing content. This operationally distinguishes it from siblings like taskops_card or taskops_review, which handle different board actions.

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 clearly states the prerequisite (the report must already be committed) and notes the milestone default ('the single open chapter'), giving the agent a concrete condition for when to use this tool. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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