task_manager

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions state-changing operations ('set a new active task', 'complete a task') but does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting the current active task, irreversibility of completion, or any data loss. It also omits permissions and return value information.

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 sentence with a colon-separated list of operations. It is front-loaded with 'Manage tasks' and every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope. No redundancy or filler.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks operational context such as return formats, side effects, or error conditions. The schema covers parameter details, but the description does not fully compensate for the lack of annotations or output 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters having descriptive text and enums for action and status. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Manage tasks' and enumerates four specific operations: get active, set new active, complete, and list. The resource 'tasks' distinguishes it from sibling managers like plan_manager, notepad_manager, and memory_manager, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for task management but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparisons to alternatives. Unlike the sibling tools, there is no mention of when not to use this tool or when a sibling would be more appropriate.

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