veto_task_parse

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds limited behavioral context beyond stating that it parses and feeds into veto_workflow. No side-effects, auth needs, or rate limits are mentioned, which the annotations do not cover either, but the description does not compensate.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a helpful pipeline note, earning its place.

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 parameter count (4) and no output schema, the description provides a thorough summary of inputs and outputs, including the structured DAG components. It lacks error conditions or limitations but is largely complete for selection and invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond summarizing the main parameter (description) and the pipeline context. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'parses', the resource 'plain-English project description or PRD', and the output 'structured task DAG with dependencies, complexity scores, priorities, and suggested agent assignments'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it feeds into veto_workflow, which is distinct from other sibling names.

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 implies usage context: use when you need to parse a project description into a structured task DAG. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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