ecosystem_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the data source (workspace/tasks.md) and the per-project count, which gives some context, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether any state changes occur, or what the exact output format is. The behavior is underspecified for an aggregation/report 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, reasonably concise sentence with no filler words. However, it is not front-loaded with a verb and uses a noun phrase that may be ambiguous. It earns a middle score because it is efficient but lacks clarity in structure.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should explain the return value, the role of config_path, and typical use cases. It only hints at aggregation and per-project counts, leaving significant gaps in the agent's understanding of how to invoke 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?

The input schema contains a parameter 'config_path' with zero description coverage in both schema and description. The description does not mention this parameter at all, forcing the agent to guess its purpose. With 0% schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but fails to do so.

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 'Agregado de tareas del ecosistema: cross-cutting (workspace/tasks.md) + conteo por proyecto' clearly indicates the resource (ecosystem tasks) and scope (cross-cutting and per-project count), but lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get'. It distinguishes from mutating siblings like ecosystem_task_add and ecosystem_task_done by implying an aggregation/reporting view, but the purpose is still somewhat vague without a direct action.

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 such as ecosystem_task_status or ecosystem_task_done. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from 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.