taskwarrior_summary

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context beyond this: it specifies the scope ('pending tasks') and the types of statistics ('counts by project, priority, and urgency'), which helps the agent understand what data to expect. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 concise: three sentences that efficiently state the purpose, usage, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. 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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, read-only, idempotent), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It adds necessary context about the summary's content (pending tasks, counts by categories) without needing to detail outputs or parameters.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing for the description to compensate for. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's output and usage.

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: 'Get a summary of task statistics' and specifies it provides 'an overview of pending tasks, including counts by project, priority, and urgency.' This is specific (verb+resource+scope) and distinguishes it from siblings like taskwarrior_list (which likely lists individual tasks) or taskwarrior_projects (which likely lists projects). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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: 'Use this tool to get an overview of pending tasks...' This suggests when to use it (for summary statistics rather than detailed lists). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (e.g., 'use taskwarrior_list for detailed task information'), which would be needed for a higher score.

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