task_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description says the tool "Stores task metadata only", which implies state mutation and sits uneasily with the read-only declaration. The remaining content ("does not start or execute an agent", isolation by project_path) is genuinely useful side-effect context, but the storage claim muddies the safety profile rather than clarifying it.

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?

It is short, but the opening sentence is malformed ("...sessions: summary") and the key disambiguating fact, that it only touches metadata and never runs an agent, is buried in the second clause. The framing needs to lead with what the tool does, not with a usage fragment.

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?

There is no output schema and the description says nothing about what a "summary" returns — fields, aggregation scope, or empty-state behavior. For a tool whose entire value is the summary payload, an agent cannot predict the result before calling it.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents project_path fully, including the per-path isolated store. The description's "Isolated by project_path" merely echoes that statement and adds no format, default, or failure-mode nuance.

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?

"Use when tracking persistent work across Codex sessions: summary" never states what the tool actually does — it reads as a restatement of the name followed by a dangling label. The only concrete clause, "Stores task metadata only; does not start or execute an agent," clarifies scope by negation rather than defining the operation, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like task_status or task_list.

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?

"Use when tracking persistent work across Codex sessions" gives a usable usage context. However, no alternative is named and no when-not-to-use condition is offered, even though task_status and task_list are obvious candidates that would need routing guidance.

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