karea_quick_task

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: status is always done, relative-time params set timing, and the tool returns the task. It could mention return format or side effects, but overall adequate.

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 sentences plus sibling reference, all essential. Front-loaded with purpose and key behavior, no wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, and key behavior for a 6-param tool with no output schema. Omits specifics of 'relative-time params' but overall sufficient for correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning: it contextualizes parameters (status always done, relative-time params) and explains the aiSessionId+toolType combo saves a round-trip. This goes beyond basic schema explanations.

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 logs a completed task ('Log something you already finished as a done task') and distinguishes it from siblings like karea_doing ('For in-progress work use karea_doing instead').

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (for finished tasks) and when not to (in-progress work) with a direct alternative: 'For in-progress work use karea_doing instead.'

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