smart_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: despite the 'complete' in the name, this tool does not start provider work. It also introduces the concept of a 'locked task' but does not explain what locking entails, side effects, or state changes. Some useful transparency, but significant gaps remain.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and a key clarifying caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is concise while delivering the most important functional distinction.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is far too sparse for a tool with 14 parameters and zero schema descriptions. It does not define what a 'locked task' is, how parameters interact, or what workflow stage this fits into. The single behavioral note is helpful but leaves an agent without enough context to invoke correctly.

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 0% and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. With 14 parameters, many of which could have ambiguous semantics (e.g., 'quality', 'workflow_tags', 'response_detail'), the description does nothing to compensate. An agent would have to infer meaning solely from parameter names and defaults.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Prepare a locked task.' It also clarifies what the tool does not do ('never begins provider work'), which distinguishes it from execution-oriented siblings like run_prepared_task. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling prepare_task, leaving some ambiguity about when smart_complete is the right choice.

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 phrase 'never begins provider work' provides an implicit when-not-to-use signal, indicating this tool is for preparation rather than execution. But it does not name alternatives or specify conditions for choosing this tool over prepare_task or run_prepared_task. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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