ReverseCentaur

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that calling marks worker-sent messages as read on the agent side, which is a side effect not covered by annotations, enhancing transparency about the tool's impact.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by additional details in a second sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema) and good annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and side effects, but lacks details on output format (e.g., message structure or pagination), which could be useful since there's no output schema.

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%, with the single parameter 'task_id' fully documented in the schema as a UUID from 'post_task'. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, such as format details or usage examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'List' and resource 'messages on one of your tasks', specifying the scope with 'oldest first' and content types included (worker questions, replies, system notices). It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_task_message' (for sending) and 'check_task' (for 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?

It implies usage by specifying 'on one of your tasks' and context for when messages are marked as read, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check_task' or 'send_task_message', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the task ID.

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