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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'recovers all open business loops with literal user commands' and notes the same response shape and handler as chieflab_status. It adds a caveat about not blindly resuming loops, which shows behavioral nuance. However, it doesn't explicitly disclose whether the recovery mutates state or is purely read-only, which would be valuable.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the most critical information (alias, first tool usage). Every sentence adds value: what it does, when to use it, and a specific behavioral warning. No filler or redundancy.

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 tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool, mentions the output shape is the same as chieflab_status, and includes an important edge-case warning. It doesn't need to restate parameter details since the schema covers them. Slightly incomplete regarding return specifics, but the alias reference compensates.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for projectName, workspaceId, and currentRepoContext. The tool description doesn't add further parameter-level meaning, but it does reference the currentRepoContext implicitly in the caveat about unrelated loops. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents parameters.

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 states the tool is an alias of chieflab_status and that its purpose is to recover all open business loops with literal user commands. It explicitly frames it as the first tool to use on session start, which distinguishes it from the sibling chieflab_status by usage context even though they share the same handler.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on when to use: 'Use as the FIRST tool when an agent session starts on a workspace that already has activity.' It also gives a direct exclusion: if a recovered loop looks unrelated to the user's current repo launch request, do not blindly resume it. This is clear, actionable usage guidance.

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