expand_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose effects (e.g., overwrites existing subtasks with 'force'), permissions, rate limits, or output format. The mention of 'detailed implementation' hints at complexity but lacks specifics.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Expand a task into subtasks') with a clarifying phrase ('for detailed implementation'). It has zero wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the generation process (e.g., AI-based), output format, or error handling. Given the rich sibling set and mutation nature (implied by 'expand'), more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying parameters like 'id' and 'num' are used for expansion. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('expand') and target ('a task into subtasks'), specifying the purpose as detailed implementation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_subtask' or 'scope_down_task' by focusing on generation rather than manual addition or scoping. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'expand_all' which expands multiple tasks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_subtask', 'scope_down_task', or 'expand_all'. The description implies usage for breaking down tasks but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., task must exist) or exclusions (e.g., not for simple tasks).

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