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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety bar is low; the description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them — result scope (first-party only), the meaning of an empty result, and the guarantee that listing has no side effects. It doesn't state pagination or ordering, but the safety profile is covered by annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what it lists and immediately qualifying scope and exclusions. Each sentence carries distinct information: scope, exclusion, empty-result semantics, and side-effect safety.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. The description covers what an agent needs — scope, exclusions, empty-result interpretation, and no-side-effect guarantee — leaving nothing material unstated for a two-parameter read 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented with format and constraints. The description reinforces that repository_full_name must be live-authorized but adds no syntax or value semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (first-party aictrl tasks) with an explicit scope constraint ('can run for one live-authorized repository'). It also carves itself out from siblings like start_task and from org-authored templates, so an agent can distinguish it without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (one live-authorized repository) and an explicit exclusion (never templates authored inside the organization), plus 'Listing never starts work,' which implies the run-it alternative. It stops short of naming start_task or get_task_execution outright, so the routing is inferred rather than stated.

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