task

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals potential side effects. The description adds that tasks are stored as individual files in projects/<slug>/tasks/, providing a persistence context. However, it doesn't detail what specific actions are destructive (e.g., update overwrites, delete removes) or any prerequisites.

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 three short sentences, each informative: purpose, actions, and storage. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is relatively sparse. While it covers the general purpose and storage, it doesn't explain the semantics of the board view, the output format, or how the action parameter maps to file operations. The schema and annotations fill some gaps, but the description alone would leave an agent uncertain about behaviors beyond the obvious.

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?

All nine parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline for parameter semantics is a 3. The description adds minimal parameter-related context—it only mentions the action types and the file storage location, which indirectly relates to the 'project' parameter. No additional parameter meanings are provided.

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 role with a specific verb ('Manage') and resource ('project tasks'), and enumerates the supported actions (add, list, update, board). This distinguishes it from the sibling toolset, which contains no other task-management tool.

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 when to use the tool ('Supports add, list, update, and board views') by listing the primary operations. However, it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given the absence of sibling task tools, the usage context is nonetheless clear.

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