create_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It does state what happens after creation ('The task will appear on the Skylight display in the task box') and the context of the task box. However, it does not discuss side effects, idempotency, or permissions, which would have provided a fuller picture of the tool's behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief explanation of the task box, a list of example triggers, and a concluding note on the outcome. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 4 simple parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the component's purpose, the domain concept (task box), when to invoke it, and the expected outcome. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively in 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 as per the rubric. The description does not add significant parameter-specific details beyond the schema. It provides example user inputs that implicitly map to the summary field, but it does not clarify formats, defaults, or interactions beyond what the schema already documents.

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 verb ('Add'), the resource ('a task to the Skylight task box'), and distinguishes this from scheduled tasks by clarifying these are 'unscheduled tasks' that can be assigned to dates later. This effectively differentiates it from siblings like create_calendar_event, which handle dated entries.

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 explicit 'when to use' examples (e.g., 'Add XYZ to my task list', 'Remind me to do ABC' with the qualifier 'without a specific date') which clearly implies when not to use it (i.e., when a date is involved). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of full 5 on the 'alternatives' criterion.

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