register_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only explains the tool's rationale (backward compatibility) but omits critical behavioral details such as whether it mutates state, whether it is idempotent, what it returns, or any required prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a write operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action ('Register a task_id'). The second sentence adds valuable context about the tool's purpose and legacy usage without unnecessary filler. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), and the description provides some context about its legacy nature. However, it lacks key behavioral details expected for a mutation-like operation, such as error conditions, idempotency, or prerequisites. The existence of an output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description remains incomplete for an agent to fully understand when and how to invoke it safely.

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 a single required parameter 'task_id' with no description (0% schema coverage), and the description merely repeats the parameter name without adding any semantic context. It does not explain the expected format, constraints, naming conventions, or how this task_id relates to other task operations, leaving the agent without necessary guidance.

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 explicitly states the action ('Register a task_id') with a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like run_task or check_task, relying instead on context about its legacy origin to imply its distinct role.

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 when-to-use guidance: it exists for backward compatibility with .claude/commands/*-hermit.md, and Stdio per-session makes per-port routing unnecessary. This implies it should only be used in legacy scenarios, though it does not directly name alternative tools.

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