decompose_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. It only states the high-level output (subtasks, effort, dependencies, critical path) but does not disclose any side effects, permission requirements, or the nature of the 'assignid' parameter. The behavioral context is minimal.

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, concise sentence that covers the main purpose. However, it could benefit from additional structure or details to improve 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 the tool has one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format, prerequisites, or limitations, leaving many gaps for an agent executing this 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?

The schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions for any parameter), and the description does not explain the only parameter 'assignid'. It is unclear whether it is an assignment ID or task ID, and the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'break down' and identifies the resource as 'assignment into subtasks with estimated effort, dependencies, and critical path'. This clearly differentiates from siblings like 'analyze_assignment' or 'extract_assignment_requirements'.

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 the tool should be used when decomposing assignments into subtasks, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'analyze_assignment' or 'extract_assignment_requirements'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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