trmm_agent_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. But the description adds no behavioral detail about what the tool returns or how it behaves, only a noun phrase describing the resource.

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 short phrase with no filler and the core concept is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse, but every word contributes meaning.

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?

This is a simple read-only tool with one parameter, but there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns. It also lacks guidance relative to the many sibling agent-specific tools, leaving the agent to infer whether this lists tasks, checks their status, or something else.

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 0% and the sole 'agent' parameter has no schema description. The phrase 'configured on an agent' only hints at the parameter's purpose but does not specify whether it expects an ID, name, or how to source it, so the description fails to compensate for the empty 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 identifies the resource as 'automated tasks configured on an agent,' which helps distinguish it from sibling agent subresources like services or processes. However, it lacks an explicit action verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve,' leaving the operation to be inferred from the tool name and annotations.

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 instead of alternatives. Among siblings like trmm_agent_services, trmm_agent_checks, and trmm_list_scripts, there is no stated selection criterion or exclusion.

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