TasksMultiServer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the 'template resolution hierarchy' behavior, which adds some context about how instructions are generated. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format is (e.g., text, structured data), if there are side effects, or any error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('generate agent instructions') and includes essential details (the hierarchy mechanism). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the generation process but lacks output details, error handling, or usage context. For a tool that likely returns instructional text, the absence of output schema means the description should compensate more, but it only partially does so.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'task_id' documented as 'The UUID of the task to generate instructions for'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'generate' and the resource 'agent instructions', specifying the mechanism 'using template resolution hierarchy' with the hierarchy levels listed. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like get_task or get_project that retrieve raw data rather than generating processed instructions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like analyze_dependencies or visualize_dependencies that might also involve processing.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task_id), exclusions, or compare to siblings like get_task (which might return task details without generated instructions). The context is implied through the parameter but not stated explicitly.

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