ecosystem_task_add

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It only hints at behavior by mentioning the file and commitability, but fails to disclose side effects, whether the task is appended or overwrites, or any prerequisites. This is insufficient 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 a single concise sentence that uses every word to convey the core action and destination, with no filler.

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 5 parameters, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is incomplete. It omits return values, side effects, parameter semantics, and any operational details needed 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 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. Parameters like type, scope, priority, and config_path are left entirely undefined, making it difficult to invoke correctly.

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 'Agrega una tarea cross-cutting al workspace/tasks.md' (adds a cross-cutting task to workspace/tasks.md), specifying the action and target resource. It also notes commitability on the branch, distinguishing it from task listing/claim/status siblings.

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 minimal usage context (cross-cutting, commitable) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like ecosystem_task_claim, ecosystem_task_done, or project_add. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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