forgehand_tasks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating it returns compact receipts and deliberately avoids loading raw logs or diffs, clarifying the tool's lightweight nature.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, resource, and key behavioral qualifier without 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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool, the description, annotations, and output schema provide enough context for correct invocation. The main gap is explicit parameter semantics, but overall completeness is solid.

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 single 'limit' parameter has no schema description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The tool description does not explain what 'limit' controls or how it affects results, so it fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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: 'List compact receipts for recent tasks'. The qualifier 'without loading raw logs or diffs' clarifies the output format and distinguishes it from heavier task-detail tooling.

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 conveys a clear context: use this for a lightweight overview of recent tasks, and not when raw logs or diffs are needed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use is evident.

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