create_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. 'Crea una nueva tarea' implies a write operation (creation), but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or the expected response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap that leaves the agent guessing about critical aspects.

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 with a single Spanish phrase ('Crea una nueva tarea') that directly states the tool's action. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as noted in other dimensions.

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 of a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, or any side effects. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for using this mutation tool is insufficient, especially compared to sibling tools that might offer more guidance.

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, with clear documentation for all three parameters (title, detail, priority) including required status and enum values. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline score 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 'Crea una nueva tarea' (Creates a new task) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'create_task' in Spanish. While it indicates the action and resource, it doesn't provide any specific details about what kind of task creation this involves or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update_task' or 'toggle_task'. The purpose is clear at a basic level but lacks differentiation.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for task creation, or how it relates to sibling tools such as 'update_task' (for modifying existing tasks) or 'list_tasks' (for viewing tasks). Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer everything from the tool name alone.

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