auto_assign_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 states the tool is admin-only and returns success, assignments, and count, but omits critical details such as behavior when no workers are available, whether the operation is synchronous, prerequisites, or error handling. The description is insufficient for safe usage.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by a usage note and simple arg/return list. It wastes no words, though the mixed language (Japanese and English) slightly reduces clarity.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description provides basic context. However, the contradiction regarding the required parameter and the lack of behavioral details (e.g., what happens if called without proper permissions or with invalid agent ID) make it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that caller_agent_id is required (must), but the schema marks it optional with a default of null, creating a contradiction. Beyond that, no additional parameter context is provided. The description adds some meaning but is undermined by the contradiction.

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: 'Automatically assign tasks to available workers.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like assign_task_to_agent (manual assignment) and create_task (creation only).

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 mentions 'Admin only' as a usage restriction, providing clear context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or specify when not to use it.

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