task_init

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the save location (~/.task-hub/tasks/<id>/) and the slugification of the task name, plus the fact that it starts tracking immediately. It does not mention potential overwrite behavior or error conditions, but the key side effects are transparent for a create-and-start tool.

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: a one-line purpose statement, a usage sentence, a storage location note, and an Args list. Every sentence contributes new information — no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a three-parameter tool.

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 description covers purpose, usage, storage side-effect, and parameter semantics, which is strong for a simple init tool. The output schema is present, so return value details are not required. Minor omissions like duplicate-name behavior or whether tracking auto-stops on errors are not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description must explain parameters. It does so comprehensively: 'name' (slugified for directory), 'description' (what the task is about), and 'tags' (optional filtering with an example). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema fields and fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 opens with 'Create a new task and start tracking it' — a specific verb+resource+outcome. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like task_resume and task_save by emphasizing 'new task' and 'start tracking', which aligns with the tool name 'task_init'.

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 states 'Use this when the user wants to begin a new tracked task', providing explicit usage context. It does not directly name alternatives, but the 'new' qualifier implicitly differentiates from task_resume/task_load, and sibling names are available in context. Lacks an explicit 'when not to use' clause but is otherwise clear.

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