job_reconcile

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one important trait: it never clears unresolved work, and it only reads terminal evidence. It does not say whether the call mutates stored state, whether it is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or what happens if evidence is missing.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the trigger condition is front-loaded before the scope constraint. The terseness borders on under-specification given the undefined term 'reconcile', but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for an unannotated tool that appears to touch job state, the description leaves open whether it writes anything, how it fails, and how job_id maps to the described evidence — gaps that matter 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% and the single parameter job_id is completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description implies a worker/job context but never states that job_id identifies the stopped worker's job or what form it takes.

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 names the operation (reconcile) and its scope (current terminal engine/Unity evidence), and ties it to a trigger (after a worker stops). However, 'reconcile' is never defined operationally, so an agent cannot tell exactly what state change or verification it performs. It also does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as job_get or workflow_status.

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 timing condition 'After a worker stops' is a genuine usage cue, which is better than nothing. But there is no explicit statement of when not to use it, no alternative tool named for related job-state queries, and no prerequisite that the job must be in a terminal state.

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