expand_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'AI-powered analysis' and 'implementation recommendations', but doesn't clarify output format, whether it's read-only or mutating, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes key features without unnecessary elaboration. However, given the complexity of the tool (11 parameters, no annotations), it might be too brief to be fully helpful.

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 complex tool with 11 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It explains what the tool does at a high level but provides no guidance on usage, parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or expected outputs. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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%, meaning none of the 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for this gap. Parameters like 'currentComplexity', 'maxSubtasks', 'targetComplexity', and 'projectType' remain completely unexplained in both schema and description.

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: 'Break down a complex task into smaller, manageable subtasks with AI-powered analysis, dependency detection, and implementation recommendations.' It specifies the verb ('break down'), resource ('complex task'), and key features (AI analysis, dependency detection, recommendations). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'analyze_task_complexity' or 'plan_sprint', which might have overlapping functionality in task analysis.

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, ideal scenarios, or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools for task/project management (e.g., 'analyze_task_complexity', 'plan_sprint', 'create_issue'), the agent lacks context on when this specific breakdown tool is appropriate.

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