task

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate destructive/read-write nature), the description discloses important behaviors: persistence across sessions, visibility at session_digest, priority ordering in 'list', and the effect of optional parent_id for subtasks. These details meaningfully extend what annotations provide, offering substantial transparency for an agent.

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 efficiently structured with a brief intro, a bulleted action list, explicit priority/status enums, and a parameter table. Every sentence adds value, and the format makes scanning fast despite covering 5 actions and 7 parameters. No fluff.

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?

Despite its complexity (multiple actions and parameters) and zero schema descriptions, the description covers all essential aspects: actions, parameter semantics, allowed values, isolation via namespaces, and persistence behavior. The presence of an output schema makes the lack of return-value details acceptable. It is fully complete for an agent to select and use the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Args' section fully compensates by explaining each parameter, mapping them to specific actions, and providing allowed values for priority and status. It adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, making it easy to invoke correctly.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Substrate-backed task / chore store' and a 'to-do tracker', with explicit action verbs ('add', 'get', 'list', 'update', 'delete') that specify exactly what it does. It distinguishes itself from sibling memory tools by noting it 'lives next to memories' and is visible at 'session_digest time', making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: it 'survives sessions', persists per namespace, and is visible to future agents at session_digest. This implies usage scenarios for persistent task management. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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