add_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety basics are covered. The description contributes nothing beyond them: no mention that title is required, that missing fields default, or that the task is persisted to a task list.

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?

A single short phrase is front-loaded with zero padding, which is structurally clean. But it is terse to the point of under-specification for a six-parameter write tool, so it cannot score highly on structure alone.

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 mutating, open-world tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description omits required fields, default behavior, side effects and return expectations. The rich schema compensates for parameter detail but not for tool-level behavior or sibling routing.

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%, including formats for due/reminder and the default list, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or behavioral detail about any of the six parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (新建 + 任务), so the agent knows this creates a task. However it gives no differentiation from the near-identical sibling add_today_task, nor from add_step or create_list, leaving the agent to guess which creation tool applies.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all. The description never explains when to pick add_task over add_today_task (which presumably also creates a task, scoped to today) or when to add a step instead.

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