TaskPaper Status

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

No annotations are provided, but the description directly discloses the two outputs (install/running status and document count). It is honest about the non-destructive, read-only nature of the tool without needing additional annotation hints.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's function without any filler. Every word is meaningful and contributes to purpose clarity.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what the agent can expect (status and count). No gaps remain.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. Description adds full behavioral context beyond the schema, which is adequate for a no-parameter tool.

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 with specific verbs: 'check whether TaskPaper is installed/running' and 'count open documents'. It distinguishes from siblings like taskpaper_add_task or taskpaper_archive_done by focusing on status.

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 for checking status before other operations, but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It is clear but lacks context for when not to use or sibling differentiation.

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