sentinel_supervise

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds useful action semantics beyond the schema enum for five of nine operations (e.g., 'fail records a worker death', 'complete runs the calibrated completion gate'), but it omits behavior for `assign`, `add_job`, and `register_worker`, and says nothing about side effects, permissions, reversibility, or response behavior.

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 front-loaded sentence that efficiently maps the tool's purpose and several actions without filler. It could be improved by covering all actions, but it is appropriately sized and structured.

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 complex multi-action dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits three of the nine enum actions and provides no safety, permission, or return-value context, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill before invoking it 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 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters. The description does not add syntax, format, or dependency details beyond what the schema provides, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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 identifies a task dispatcher with supervisor actions and maps several enum values (`plan`, `halt`/`resume`, `fail`, `complete`, `classify_circuit`) to concrete behaviors. It does not distinguish itself from any sibling tools (`sentinel_get_status`, `sentinel_oversight_monitor`, etc.), and it omits several enum actions (`assign`, `add_job`, `register_worker`), so it is clear but not fully specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only lists what some actions do, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the action names and overall 'dispatcher' framing.

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