Taskmaster

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the selection criteria ('dependencies and status') but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: what algorithm is used (e.g., priority-based, dependency resolution), whether it modifies data (likely read-only but not stated), what happens when no tasks are available, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with algorithmic behavior and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted language, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this level of 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?

Given the tool's algorithmic nature (selecting next task based on dependencies/status), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should explain the selection logic, output format, and behavioral characteristics. The current description leaves too many questions unanswered for proper agent usage.

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 already documents all 4 parameters with good descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 'find' and the resource 'next task', specifying it's based on dependencies and status. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_task' (retrieve specific task) and 'get_tasks' (list all tasks) by focusing on algorithmic selection of the next actionable item. However, it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 implies usage context ('based on dependencies and status') suggesting this tool should be used when determining what to work on next in a task management system. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'get_task' or 'get_tasks', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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