Add Tasks

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Append' correctly conveys additive, non-destructive semantics and the 'claimed Goal' phrasing discloses a precondition, but there is nothing about ordering, idempotency, failure modes, or whether appended tasks are returned with identifiers.

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?

Two short sentences, both front-loaded: the primary action first, then the routing rule for the alternative. No filler or repetition.

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 simple single-parameter append tool with a well-documented nested schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and the alternative path. With no annotations and no output schema, it should say more about what the call returns or what happens on invalid input, which is a real gap.

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 top-level schema coverage is 0% and the description adds no information about the 'tasks' parameter. However, the nested item schema documents title, summary, and code with concrete examples, so the schema itself does much of the work even though the description does not compensate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Append') and resource ('Tasks to the claimed Goal's plan'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool mutates. It also implicitly scopes the tool to an existing claimed Goal, which distinguishes it from add_goal or add_standing_instruction, though it never explicitly contrasts those siblings.

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 second sentence gives an explicit exclusion and routing rule: work outside the plan belongs in a Detour instead. The phrase 'the claimed Goal' also signals the precondition that a goal must already be claimed, but that prerequisite is implied rather than stated.

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