Task Complete

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which are well-covered. The description adds substantial value: it discloses that in Gold Task sessions it enforces mandatory file scope, fresh validation, Git, and control-repository completion checks, and supplies the supervisor completion signal. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, dense but not bloated. The first sentence conveys the core action; the second adds conditional behavior context. No wasted words, though the Gold Task enforcement detail is substantial and somewhat dense for one sentence.

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 description covers the trigger condition, conditional behavior, notification side-effect, and supervisor signal. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a notification tool with 7 params it's reasonably complete; the enforcement chain ordering could be slightly more explicit but is adequate.

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 100%, so the schema documents all 7 parameters. The description adds some context about the workspace_id/conversation_id binding behavior ('Modern MCP injects it automatically') and staleness rejection, which goes slightly beyond bare schema text. Given full coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate with minor bonus for behavioral binding notes.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Send one local Windows notification' after the workspace task passes focused verification. It distinguishes its Gold Task enforcement role from optional use outside. However, it doesn't fully distinguish from sibling tools like task_status or publish_task_report, though the notification-specific scope is fairly clear.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: after the entire workspace task has passed focused verification, and it distinguishes Gold Task sessions (mandatory checks enforced) from non-Gold (optional). It doesn't name specific alternative tools for similar notification or completion purposes but conveys the triggering condition well.

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