parse-tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors: parsing tasks from files, extracting specific attributes (IDs, descriptions, etc.), and adding them to a JSON file after user approval. However, it lacks details on error handling, file format requirements, or what happens if tasks-active.json doesn't exist. It adds value but misses some operational context.

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 tool's purpose, source, extraction details, and approval step. Every part earns its place, with no redundant information. It could be slightly more front-loaded by starting with the core action, but it's highly concise.

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's complexity (parsing and modifying files with user approval), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the what and how but lacks details on file paths, approval mechanism, error cases, or output format. For a tool with behavioral implications, it should provide more operational 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't introduce any parameter-related confusion. It appropriately focuses on the tool's action rather than inputs.

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 ('parse', 'extracts', 'adds') and resources ('tasks from spec files or implementation plans', 'tasks-active.json'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on task parsing rather than creation (create-spec), organization (organize), or review (review). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like 'sync' or 'refresh-prompts'.

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 context ('from spec files or implementation plans', 'after user approval'), suggesting when to use this tool for task extraction and approval workflows. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'organize' or 'review', nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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