cc_create_task

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only states that the tool creates a task and does not execute commands, but lacks details about side effects, persistence, error handling, or return values. This is insufficient for a task creation tool.

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 a single, focused sentence that conveys purpose and limitation with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and earns every word.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to provide sufficient context for correct usage, such as parameter details or expected outcomes, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning to any of the 4 parameters. It does not explain 'priority' values, 'project_path' usage, or 'instruction' format. The agent would have no guidance on how to fill these fields beyond their names.

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's purpose: creating a to-do task when the user says 'let cc/Codex/Claude Code do...'. It specifies the verb (create) and resource (task), and distinguishes itself by explicitly saying it does not execute commands, which sets it apart from sibling tools that execute commands.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: when the user invokes cc/Codex/Claude Code to do something. It also states what not to do (do not execute commands). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools, though the context implies differentiation.

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