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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes the action as non-mutating ('List'), which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state there are no side effects, nor does it mention authentication requirements, pagination, or output format. 'Including host capabilities' hints at extra data, but no details are given. This is adequate for a simple list tool but not richly transparent.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose ('List Muster-owned sessions and tasks') before adding the secondary detail about host capabilities. It contains no filler or repetition, and its brevity is appropriate for a tool with only one optional parameter.

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 tool's low complexity (one optional enum parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the main purpose but leaves gaps: it does not explain the 'kind' parameter's effect, nor does it describe the return structure. The phrase 'including host capabilities' suggests extra output but is undefined. For a simple list tool, this is moderately complete but not fully self-sufficient.

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?

The description does not explain the 'kind' parameter at all. The schema provides an optional enum of 'session' or 'task', but with 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify how this parameter filters results. The overview says 'sessions and tasks' but not that 'kind' selects between them. This is a meaningful gap, as the parameter's role is left entirely to inference from the schema's enum values.

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 operation: 'List Muster-owned sessions and tasks'. It uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource, which distinguishes it from siblings like 'run', 'stop', and 'output'. The additional 'including host capabilities' makes the scope more specific without confusing the core purpose.

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 implies usage: the agent should call this when it needs to enumerate existing sessions/tasks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., before running or stopping), nor does it describe when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or routing to siblings, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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

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 only says 'Read', implying a non-mutating operation, but does not state whether the task must be finished, whether it blocks, what happens if the id is invalid, or what the output format is. The description is too sparse to convey essential behavioral traits.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It lacks essential context that should be present given the absence of annotations and parameter descriptions. The brevity works against the agent rather than aiding it, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's needs.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the 'id' is, what 'captured output' means, how to obtain the output, or what the response will look like. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the provided definition.

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?

The input schema has a single required parameter 'id' with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to (presumably a task run ID) or how to obtain it. The agent has no information about the parameter's meaning, format, or constraints beyond a minLength of 1.

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 verb 'Read' and the resource 'captured output from a task run', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run, list, and stop. However, it is slightly vague about what 'captured output' includes (e.g., stdout, stderr, logs), so it does not fully specify the resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list or run. It does not mention prerequisites like the task needing to be completed, nor does it contrast with siblings. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important trait: sessions only return when reachable and tasks yield a non-messageable handle. That is genuinely useful blocking/return semantics, but it says nothing about permissions, sandbox bypass, or refusal conditions that dominate this tool's risk profile.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the mode-dependent outcome. Every sentence earns its place, though the brevity is stark against a 21-parameter tool.

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 21-parameter launch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits auth/prerequisite context, safety-relevant launch semantics, and any return-structure detail beyond the single task-handle note.

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 71%, so the schema documents most parameters in detail. The description adds meaning only for the session/task outcome, not for any named parameter, so it neither compensates heavily nor repeats 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+resource ("Launch an instructed agent") and clarifies the two operating modes it produces. It is clearly the launching tool versus siblings like list/output/stop, though it does not explicitly name or contrast against them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance for the 21 parameters. The session-vs-task return distinction implies how the kind choice behaves, but prerequisites and exclusions are left to the schema.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Stop,' implying a mutating action, but does not disclose whether stopping is irreversible, what happens to the run's output, permission requirements, or idempotency.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part contributes: the action, the resource scope, and the accepted identifier forms.

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 tool is simple and the description covers the action and parameter semantics, so an agent can likely invoke it correctly. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral consequences and does not mention how to obtain the id or name, despite the sibling list tool existing.

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?

The schema has one required string id with no description (0% coverage). The description adds crucial meaning by explaining that id can be a durable id or an unambiguous peer name, which is not derivable from the schema. It does not define the formats, but it compensates well for the schema gap.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Stop') and names the exact resource ('Muster-owned run'), plus the identifier forms accepted. It is clearly distinct from siblings run, list, and output.

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 implies this tool is for stopping an existing Muster-owned run and even states how to identify it, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or direct the agent to list for finding ids. Usage context is clear but alternatives are left implicit.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys that this mutates a running session's title, but says nothing about failure behavior, ambiguity resolution, whether the title must be unique, or what response to expect.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and accepted identifier forms come first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits error/ambiguity behavior, session-existence requirements, and confirmation of the applied title, which an agent needs before invoking.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add one useful fact: id may be a durable id or an unambiguous peer name. But it gives no format, length, or validity guidance for either id or title, leaving half the parameter meaning unexplained.

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 (retitle) and resource (a running tmux session), and identifies the identifiers accepted. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like run or stop, but the mutation of session metadata is distinct enough to identify.

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?

'from outside its agent' implies the calling context (an external caller, not the session's own agent), which is useful guidance. However, it never states when to retitle versus other operations, or prerequisites such as the session needing to exist.

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