sdd-tasks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, and reversibility, but it does not. 'Submit' implies a write operation, but no further behavioral details are given, such as whether it creates, updates, or executes tasks, or what happens on submission.

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 extremely short, consisting of four words, which is concise but under-specified. It does not provide enough information for the agent to understand the tool's purpose or usage, making it more of an under-specification than a well-structured concise description.

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?

The tool has 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The brief description is wholly inadequate to guide correct invocation, especially given the lack of sibling differentiation and the absence of any behavioral or parameter 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 only 20% (only featureName is described), and the description mentions no parameters. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation, leaving the agent with no additional meaning for content, expectedRevision, expectedArtifactSha256, or reviewTestCases.

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 uses a specific verb 'Submit' and a resource 'implementation tasks artifact', but the resource is ambiguous and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like sdd-implement. It lacks clarity on what the artifact actually contains or how it relates to implementation tasks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is a single imperative sentence with no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when this should be invoked.

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