gk_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals that an unknown action returns the allowed list (saving schema tokens), which is a useful behavioral hint. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, state changes, or the nature of the output, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 brief and front-loaded with the domain ('Task lifecycle') followed by the action list and usage hint. Every part contributes, though the list format is compact and could benefit from clearer separation or examples. It is concise without being overly terse.

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 has 7 distinct actions and an output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not explain the purpose of each action, expected args, or return behavior. The output schema exists but is not described here, so the description alone is insufficient for reliable use. It feels like a stubbed documentation.

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 input schema has no descriptions and no enums, so the description adds crucial meaning by enumerating all seven valid action values. It also confirms that args is optional. This is substantial value beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on what each action does or how args should be structured.

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 tool as 'Task lifecycle' and lists seven actions (open, hypothesize, graph, policy, blast_radius, edit_safe, failing_slice), but it does not explain what these actions accomplish or how they relate to a task lifecycle. The purpose is somewhat inferable but vague, and it does not clearly distinguish itself from sibling tools other than by name.

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 gives invocation syntax ('Pass action= and optional args={}') and notes that an unknown action returns the allowed list, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like gk_code, gk_scan, or gk_phase. There is no explicit guidance on appropriate contexts or exclusions.

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