Decompose goal into tasks

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds 'Stateless: returns tasks but does NOT persist them,' which aligns with annotations and adds context. No contradictions; it clearly conveys the tool's non-persistent, read-only nature.

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 sentences: first states purpose and output structure; second adds statelessness. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. Front-loads key information.

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 existence of output schema and rich parameter descriptions, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior (stateless, ordered list, acceptance criteria, dependencies). It lacks detail on return structure but output schema fills that gap. No missing critical context.

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 80%, so baseline is 3. Description does not elaborate on parameters beyond the schema, but the schema already has detailed descriptions for time_budget, max_chunk_size, etc. The description's mention of '5-90 minutes' adds context for task duration but is not parameter-specific.

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?

Title 'Decompose goal into tasks' and description 'Break a vague goal into a small ordered list of atomic 5-90 minute tasks with explicit acceptance criteria and dependency edges' clearly state the verb (break) and resource (goal into tasks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'brief_meeting' or 'record_fact' which are unrelated.

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 vague goal decomposition, stating 'Break a vague goal...'. It does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or alternatives, but sibling tools are diverse so no confusion. The stateless note clarifies that tasks are not persisted, guiding agent behavior.

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