Taskmaster

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. While 'analyze' and 'generate' imply read and write operations, it doesn't specify whether this tool modifies data, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., creating output files), or handles errors. The mention of 'expansion recommendations' suggests it might influence task expansion, but behavioral details are lacking.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence with 7 words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, output format, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more detail on what 'expansion recommendations' entail or how results are used would improve completeness for this analysis tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'threshold' relates to 'expansion recommendations' or clarify interactions between 'ids', 'from', and 'to'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Analyze task complexity and generate expansion recommendations.' It specifies the action ('analyze' and 'generate') and the resource ('task complexity'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'complexity_report' or 'expand_task', which appear related.

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 sibling tools like 'complexity_report' (likely for reporting) and 'expand_task' (likely for expansion actions), there's no indication of how this analysis tool fits into the workflow or when it should be preferred over other tools.

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