Decompose goal into tasks

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) indicate safe, idempotent operation. The description adds important detail: statelessness and non-persistence of tasks. No contradictions. However, does not elaborate on potential side effects (none expected).

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 concise sentences that front-load the purpose and add a key behavioral note. 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?

Given an output schema and annotations, the description covers core functionality and statelessness but lacks parameter guidance for 'goal' and does not mention the output schema. Adequate but not thorough.

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 50% (only time_budget described). The tool description does not elaborate on the goal parameter format or constraints, and does not mention time_budget. This leaves the goal parameter underspecified.

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 function (break a vague goal into tasks) and specifies output characteristics (ordered list, atomic tasks, acceptance criteria, dependency edges). It distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which focus on checking behaviors or storage management.

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 use for vague goals but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. Given distinct siblings, this is acceptable but leaves room for ambiguity.

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