task

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral aspects such as side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether actions are destructive. The agent cannot infer safety or idempotency.

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 very brief and front-loaded with the action list. It wastes no words, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail. It is minimally concise for a simple tool, but here the tool is complex.

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 complexity (22 parameters, multiple actions, output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the semantics of each action or parameter, nor the expected output beyond the schema.

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?

With 22 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains 'sts' vs 'status' for the update action. All other parameters (act, desc, prio, etc.) lack any explanation, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 lists the actions (create, query, update, log, summary, export, compress) clearly, indicating the tool covers the task lifecycle. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'search' or 'admin' by focusing on task management, though not explicitly.

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 only provides guidance for the update action, suggesting 'sts' over 'status'. No general guidance on when to use this tool compared to siblings, nor when to use specific actions like create vs. log.

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