taskwarrior_stop

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it clarifies that stopping indicates 'paused work,' which isn't covered by annotations like idempotentHint or destructiveHint. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent, but the description usefully explains the behavioral intent. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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's moderate complexity (1 parameter, annotations provided, output schema exists), the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, usage, and parameters, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could be more comprehensive on parameter details given the 0% schema coverage.

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. It mentions 'params: StopTaskInput containing the task_id to stop' and provides an example with 'task_id="5",' adding some meaning. However, it doesn't fully detail parameter semantics like format constraints or what 'task_id' entails beyond the schema's basic type, leaving gaps.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Stop') and resource ('working on a task'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'taskwarrior_start' or 'taskwarrior_pause' (if such a tool existed), which would require more specific context about what 'stop' means in this system.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Use this tool to indicate you've paused work on a task,' which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when to use 'complete' or 'delete' instead) or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity compared to sibling tools.

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