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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the result may be empty ('if any') and that this is a non-mutating lookup implied by 'return', but it says nothing about required permissions, polling behavior, or what a returned task contains.

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?

Two compact sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Every clause contributes (subject, scope, and the reconnect use case).

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?

For a one-parameter read lookup with no output schema and no annotations, this covers the essentials: what is returned, the scoping key, and the emptiness case. Missing only a hint about the returned task shape and its relationship to the status-checking siblings.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the id scopes to a project, which the schema already conveys via 'Project id.'

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 and resource: return the currently-running edit task for a given project. The scope ('currently-running', 'if any') is precise. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from lookalike siblings such as check_task_status or check_job_status, so an agent can't tell them apart from this text alone.

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?

'Useful for reconnecting MCP clients' gives an implied usage context but never states when to choose this over check_task_status or autonomous_edit. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer selection.

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