auto-task-tracker

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosure. It reveals automatic self-triggering every 10 seconds and the conditions for that. It does not detail side effects or interactions with other tools, but for a simple monitoring tool, this is sufficient.

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 concise, with the purpose as the first sentence, followed by trigger conditions. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger conditions, and parameter meaning. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it, though it lacks details on return values or progress format.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'taskThresholdSeconds' described as 'Auto-trigger when task exceeds this duration'. The description reinforces this with the default value of 30 seconds but adds no new semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool automatically monitors task progress during long-running operations and updates progress without user prompting. It distinguishes from sibling tools 'task-completed' and 'task-started' by emphasizing automation.

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 specifies conditions for automatic triggering (tasks >30s, multiple tools, complex processing), implying when to use this tool over manual alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some room for interpretation.

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