Write Task Breakdown

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

The description adds no behavioral detail beyond what annotations (all false) imply. It says 'writes' but does not clarify side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting behavior, error handling). With destructiveHint false, the absence of explanation about controlled overwriting (via force parameter) is a 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, front-loaded sentence of 20 words that covers the main purpose. It is concise but could be more structured (no bullet points or sections). However, the brevity does not sacrifice clarity significantly.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no explicit success/error descriptions, the description leaves gaps. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., path of written file) or behavior when file exists. The description is incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's effects.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'pre-implementation gates' and 'parallel markers' which map to schema parameters, but it does not add extra meaning beyond the schema definitions. The parameter semantics are adequately explained in 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 clearly states that the tool generates and writes TASKS.md with specific content (gates, parallel markers, effort estimates, traceability). It uses a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes from sibling tools like sdd_verify_tasks or sdd_write_spec by focusing on writing the task breakdown file.

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 (e.g., sdd_verify_tasks, sdd_write_spec). It does not mention prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. An AI agent would need to infer context from the tool name and siblings alone.

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