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 mentions that the tool 'Returns the full details of the newly created task upon success', which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or side effects (e.g., whether dependencies are validated). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 the core purpose, followed by parameter and return details in clear, concise sentences. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return value, but it could better address behavioral aspects like error handling or dependencies validation. It is adequate but has gaps in transparency.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description lists the parameters ('project ID', 'description', 'dependency task IDs', 'priority level', 'initial status') but does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Adds a new task') and the target resource ('to a specified project within the Task Management Server'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'createProject' (which creates projects) and 'updateTask' (which modifies existing tasks).

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 implies usage by mentioning required parameters ('Requires the project ID and a description'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'updateTask' or 'setTaskStatus'. No guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions beyond the parameter requirements.

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 discloses that the tool creates a new entry (mutation behavior), returns a UUID, and handles default naming. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or side effects, which are important for a creation 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage context, return value, and parameter details in four concise sentences. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (creation operation with one optional parameter) and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, return value, and parameter behavior. However, it could improve by addressing potential errors or constraints, as annotations are absent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the optional nature of the parameter and the consequence of omission (default name generation), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical details.

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 specific action ('Creates a new, empty project entry'), resource ('in the Task Management Server database'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'importProject' or 'exportProject' by specifying it creates an empty entry rather than importing data.

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 implies usage context ('used by clients to initiate a new workspace for tasks') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'importProject' or provide exclusions. It mentions the optional name parameter but lacks guidance on prerequisites or scenarios.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key traits: the operation is 'highly destructive,' 'cannot be undone,' deletes 'ALL associated tasks and dependencies,' and 'returns a success confirmation.' This covers safety, side effects, and output expectations comprehensively.

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 the core action and impact, followed by parameter and behavioral details in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds critical information (destructive nature, parameter requirement, confirmation output) with zero waste 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains the action, scope (project+tasks+dependencies), irreversible nature, parameter need, and confirmation return. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error cases or permissions, but it compensates well given the context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the project_id parameter as a required UUID for an existing project. The description adds minimal value beyond this, only stating 'Requires the project ID' without additional context like format or validation rules. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('permanently deletes') and resource ('a project and ALL associated tasks and dependencies'), distinguishing it from siblings like deleteTask (which only deletes tasks) and createProject (which creates rather than deletes). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context that this is for deleting projects and their associated content, implying it should be used when complete project removal is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. deleteTask for individual tasks) or name alternatives, though the sibling list includes deleteTask as a logical alternative.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the cascade effect ('deletes its subtasks and dependency links due to database cascade rules'), the return value ('Returns the count of successfully deleted tasks'), and the batch operation nature ('one or more tasks'). However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling.

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 perfectly structured and concise with four sentences: purpose statement, parameter requirements, important behavioral note, and return value. Every sentence adds essential information with zero waste, and it's front-loaded with the core action.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the cascade behavior and return value. However, it could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs, error responses, or idempotency. Given the complexity of a batch delete operation, there's room for slightly more context.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning that parameters are 'required' and that task_ids is 'an array,' but doesn't provide additional semantic context like format examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Deletes') and resource ('one or more tasks within a specified project'), distinguishing it from siblings like deleteProject (which deletes projects) or setTaskStatus (which modifies tasks). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'within a specified project' and requiring project_id and task_ids, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like deleteProject or updateTask. No guidance is provided on prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use it.

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 discloses key behavioral traits: it can replace existing subtasks with the 'force' flag, and the operation may fail if subtasks exist and 'force' is false. However, it doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or error handling details, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized with four sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: purpose, required inputs, optional behavior, and return details. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic completeness for a mutation tool: it states the action, inputs, and return value. However, it lacks details on error cases, side effects, or output structure, which are important for a tool that modifies data. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameters (project ID, parent task ID, subtask descriptions, force flag) but doesn't provide additional semantic context or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Breaks down a specified parent task into multiple subtasks based on provided descriptions.' It uses specific verbs ('breaks down,' 'creates') and identifies the resource (parent task). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'addTask' or 'updateTask,' which might also modify tasks.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the need for a parent task and project ID, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'addTask' or 'updateTask.' It hints at a specific scenario (breaking down tasks into subtasks) but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements.

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 the full burden. It discloses that the export includes 'complete data set' with metadata, tasks, and dependencies, and that the format is fixed to JSON. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., if this is a read-only operation or generates files).

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 the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific inclusions and constraints. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or the structure of the returned JSON string. It is adequate for a simple export tool but could be more complete for a tool with potential complexity in data retrieval.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'Requires the project ID' and 'format is fixed to JSON', which aligns with but does not significantly expand beyond the schema's details for 'project_id' and 'format'.

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 specific action ('Exports'), the resource ('complete data set for a specified project'), and the output format ('as a JSON string'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'importProject' (which imports) and 'listTasks' (which lists only tasks).

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 implies usage by stating 'Requires the project ID' and 'The format is fixed to JSON for V1', but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'showTask' or 'listTasks' for partial data, nor does it mention prerequisites beyond the ID.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the selection algorithm (status, dependencies, priority, creation order) and return behavior (full details or null), which are crucial for understanding how the tool operates. It does not mention error handling, performance, or side effects, but covers core behavior adequately.

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 the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by detailed selection criteria and return behavior in concise sentences. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 of the selection logic and no output schema, the description provides a complete explanation of how the next task is chosen and what is returned (full details or null). It lacks details on error cases or output format specifics, but for a tool with no annotations, it covers the essential context adequately.

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 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'project_id' documented as a UUID for the project. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what constitutes a valid project or how it relates to task selection. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 specific action ('identifies and returns') and resource ('next actionable task within a specified project'), distinguishing it from siblings like listTasks (which lists all tasks) or showTask (which shows a specific task). It explains the selection logic, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 implies usage context by specifying that it finds the next task based on status, dependencies, priority, and creation time, suggesting it's for workflow management. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like listTasks or setTaskStatus, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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 the full burden and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it creates a new project (implying mutation), performs validation (parsing, structure, size limits), and returns a project_id upon success. It misses details like error handling or permissions, but covers essential operational traits beyond basic purpose.

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 the core purpose, followed by validation and return details in four concise sentences. Each sentence adds value without waste, making it easy to scan and understand quickly. The structure is logical and efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a creation tool: it explains the action, input requirements, validation, and return value. It could improve by mentioning error cases or dependencies more explicitly, but it covers the essentials well for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond implying 'project_data' must match the export structure, which is redundant with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Creates a *new* project by importing data from a JSON string'), identifies the resource ('project'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'createProject' by specifying the import mechanism and dependency on 'exportProject' output. The asterisks emphasize the creation aspect, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when importing project data from a JSON string that conforms to the 'exportProject' structure. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., vs. 'createProject' for manual creation) or name alternatives, though the dependency on 'exportProject' implies a specific workflow.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Retrieves' (implying read-only) and describes output format ('array of task objects'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is efficiently structured with four sentences that each add value: purpose, filtering option, subtask inclusion, and return type. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy. Every sentence earns its place without wasted words.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error scenarios, permissions) and output details (e.g., task object structure). For a tool with siblings like 'expandTask', more differentiation would be helpful.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions optional filtering by status and subtask inclusion, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or edge cases. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('list of tasks for a specified project'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'showTask' (single task) and 'getNextTask' (specific next task) by emphasizing listing multiple tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'expandTask' which might also retrieve tasks with subtasks.

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 implies usage when needing a list of tasks for a project with optional filtering and subtask inclusion. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like 'showTask' for single tasks or 'getNextTask' for workflow management. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., project must exist) or exclusions is provided beyond what's in the schema.

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 and does well by disclosing key behaviors: it verifies task existence before updating (safety mechanism), handles batch updates (1-100 tasks), and returns a count of updated tasks. However, it doesn't mention error handling, permission requirements, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

Four concise sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second lists required parameters, third describes verification behavior, fourth specifies return value. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the verification behavior and return value. However, it doesn't cover error scenarios, permission requirements, or what happens when some tasks don't exist. Given the complexity of a batch update operation, some additional context would be helpful.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions the status enum values and the 1-100 task ID range, but these are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Updates the status'), resource ('tasks within a specified project'), and scope ('one or more tasks'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'updateTask' by focusing specifically on status updates rather than general task modifications.

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 implies usage context through parameter requirements but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'updateTask'. It mentions prerequisites (project ID, task IDs, status) but doesn't provide guidance on when this tool is preferred over other task-modification tools.

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. It discloses that it retrieves details (read operation) and specifies what's included (dependencies, direct subtasks), but lacks information about error handling, permissions needed, or rate limits. It adequately describes the core behavior but misses some operational context.

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?

Three concise sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second states requirements, third states return value. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without 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?

For a read-only tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, requirements, and return content. However, without annotations or output schema, it could benefit from more detail on error cases or exact return structure.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating they are required, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 specific action ('Retrieves'), the resource ('full details of a single, specific task'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns details including dependencies and direct subtasks, unlike listTasks (which lists multiple tasks) or getNextTask (which focuses on next task).

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 explicitly states 'Requires the project ID and the task ID', providing clear prerequisites. It distinguishes from listTasks by focusing on a single task, but does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond what's implied by sibling names.

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns the full details of the updated task upon success, which is useful. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the update is reversible, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 the core purpose, followed by requirements, allowed updates, constraints, and return behavior in four concise sentences. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic operation and return, but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or performance considerations. With 100% schema coverage, it's minimally viable but could provide more behavioral context for better agent guidance.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing the optional fields (description, priority, dependencies) and noting that at least one must be provided, but this doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's detailed descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('specific details of an existing task within a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'setTaskStatus' or 'expandTask', which might also modify task properties, 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 implies usage by specifying required parameters (project ID and task ID) and stating that at least one optional field must be provided, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'setTaskStatus' for status changes or 'expandTask' for other modifications. The context is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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