ddflow_task_add

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that globs are critical for conflict detection and parallel safety, which is valuable. But it does not describe other behaviors such as mutation effects, validation, or return values, so transparency is partial.

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 two sentences, with the purpose in the first and a critical usage instruction in the second. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no fluff.

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 (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description only addresses one aspect (globs) and leaves out broader context such as how tasks relate to phases, prerequisites, or typical usage patterns. It is adequate but not comprehensive for an agent to fully understand when and how to use it.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant meaning to the 'globs' parameter by explaining its purpose and consequence of omission, which goes beyond the schema's simple description. Other parameters are not elaborated, but the added emphasis on globs justifies a 4.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a task to a phase'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ddflow_phase_add or other 'add' tools, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 strong guidance on setting globs for parallel safety, which is useful context for using the tool correctly. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions, leaving tool selection to implication.

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