add_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'using AI' but doesn't explain what this means in practice—such as whether it involves automated research, generation, or other AI-specific behaviors. It also omits critical details like permissions needed, side effects, or response format, which are essential for a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool name, though it could be more front-loaded with key details given the complexity, but it avoids waste and is structurally sound.

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 (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the AI aspect, how parameters interact (e.g., 'prompt' vs. manual fields), or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer behavior in a context with many sibling 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying AI involvement, which doesn't clarify parameter usage or interactions. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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 'Add a new task using AI' states the basic action (add) and resource (task) with the qualifier 'using AI', which distinguishes it from purely manual creation. However, it doesn't specify what 'using AI' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'add_subtask' or 'update_task', making the purpose somewhat vague rather than specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'add_subtask', 'add_dependency', and 'update_task', there's no indication of the appropriate context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using 'add_task', leaving the agent without clear usage direction.

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