Manage Tasks

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'change' aligns with a mutable operation. However, beyond this, the description discloses no additional behavioral details—such as whether listing tasks has side effects, whether updates modify note files, or what happens with custom status. Since annotations already cover the basic mutability, the description adds minimal transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is concise and easy to parse, earning full marks for efficiency.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete for a tool with 9 parameters and complex actions. It does not clarify which parameters apply to 'list' versus 'update', nor how filter, done, status, ref, file, path, line, and daily relate to the actions. Without additional documentation or schema descriptions, an agent cannot correctly select and invoke this tool.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It fails to do so. None of the nine parameters (ref, done, file, line, path, daily, filter, status, action) are explained. The description only names high-level actions, leaving the agent without any insight into how to construct a valid invocation.

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 dual function: 'List tasks or change a task's completion/custom status.' The verb 'List' and 'change' specify exact actions, and the resource 'tasks' is distinct from sibling tools focused on notes. This makes it immediately clear what the tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for task management within notes, nor does it reference sibling tools like read_note or update_note. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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