List Adaptation Tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the data returned: shared_prompt_guidance applies to all prompt tasks, guidance items have stable ids, and verbatim_source is always original content. It also cautions against re-listing. It does not explicitly state side-effect-freedom, but the list semantics strongly imply a read-only operation, so the transparency is solid.

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 efficient and front-loaded with the purpose and the critical 'Call it ONCE' instruction. It uses a compact paragraph with clear sub-points, every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not explain return format. It covers key data semantics (stable ids, original source) and usage constraints. The only significant gap is parameter explanation, but the tool is simple with just two parameters, and the description provides enough context for an agent to understand run_dir's role. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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%, yet the description does not explain either parameter. It implies run_dir identifies the migration run but never defines it explicitly, and the 'now' parameter is entirely unmentioned. The description should compensate for the lack of schema documentation but fails to do so.

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 purpose: 'Per-file adaptation worklist for a started migration run.' It names the resource (adaptation tasks) and the context (started migration run), making it distinct from sibling tools like start_migration or finalize_migration. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of the strongest differentiation.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Call it ONCE.' and 'Do not re-list between submissions; finalize_migration reports remaining gaps.' This tells the agent exactly when to use the tool and when to switch to a sibling, leaving no ambiguity about invocation frequency or fallback behavior.

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