Parse task list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: parse failures return a non-raising ValidateResult (valid=False, single errors[].message capped at 300 chars) while absent/unreadable paths still raise the OSError family. This exception-vs-return contract is exactly the behavior an agent must know before invoking, and it is stated explicitly.

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?

Purpose is correctly front-loaded, but the second sentence is an overloaded run-on stuffed with internal references (feat-110, ADR UUIDs, GitHub issue #204, 'case 5 of the ADR ... workaround chain') that add provenance noise rather than agent-usable information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description goes further by explaining the error-return semantics. For a single-parameter parser the definition is nearly complete, with the only real gap being guidance on when to prefer it over the sibling get/validate tools.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'from disk' and the Path.read_text() reference establish that 'path' is a filesystem path to an existing file. It adds no detail on relative vs absolute paths or expected extension, leaving gaps the schema does not fill.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Parse a task list markdown file') plus input format (YAML frontmatter + body) and output type (TskDocument). An agent can distinguish it from the parallel parse_* family and from get_tsk/list_tsk without opening the schema.

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 never says when to choose this over alternatives like get_tsk, validate, or list_tsk, nor any prerequisite for calling it. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement; there are no exclusions or routing hints despite a crowded sibling set of near-identical parse_* tools.

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