create_task

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

The description discloses that the tool creates a folder, workspace, and state, and explicitly notes that git worktrees are not created. However, with no annotations, it omits important behavioral details such as permissions, side effects, reversibility, or whether dry_run is a safety mechanism.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core function and a key exclusion without any filler. It is concise and efficiently structured.

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 creation tool with three parameters and no annotation support, the description is too sparse. It fails to mention the dry-run option, product_root semantics, or when to choose this tool over 'create_with_preset', leaving critical context gaps.

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 description provides zero information about the 'task', 'dry_run', or 'product_root' parameters. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the agent is left to guess parameter meanings from names alone, which is insufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Cria') and resource ('task'), and adds qualifiers 'vazia' (empty), 'pasta + workspace + estado', and 'sem worktrees git'. This clearly scopes the tool and differentiates it from the sibling 'create_with_preset', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_with_preset'. The 'empty' qualifier implies use for tasks without presets, but it is not clearly stated, and there are no prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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