task

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive; the description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, noting persistence across sessions, priority ordering in list results, namespace isolation, and action-specific data requirements. It does not detail delete side effects (e.g., sub-task handling), but action-specific behavior is well covered.

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 front-loaded, uses simple headers for actions and valid values, and every sentence contributes operational guidance. There is no redundant fluff or repeated schema data; the Arg list is concise and structured.

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?

For a multi-action CRUD tool with 7 parameters and sparse schema descriptions, this is thorough: it covers all actions, parameter purposes, accepted enums for priority/status, namespace default, and the relation to session digest. The output schema exists, so return-value transcription is unnecessary.

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 fully compensates by defining each parameter in context of accepted actions. It explains that title is needed for add, task_id for get/update/delete, status is filter-vs-update-value, and parent_id creates a sub-task tree. This is exactly the kind of semantic clarity an agent needs.

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?

Description opens with 'Substrate-backed task / chore store' and labels it 'a thin general-purpose to-do tracker,' clearly identifying the resource and domain. It enumerates concrete actions (add/get/list/update/delete) and thereby distinguishes this tool from sibling memory/skill utilities.

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 gives strong context: tasks persist across sessions, are scoped by namespace, appear at session_digest time, and are used by future agents. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative sibling utilities, though the context is sufficiently clear.

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