ReverseCentaur

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, which the description aligns with by implying a write action ('send a message'). The description adds useful context about message visibility ('visible to the assigned worker or workers considering a posted task'), but does not disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and use cases, the second clarifies scope and visibility.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context well, but lacks details on return values or error handling, which would be beneficial since there is 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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (task_id as UUID from post_task, body as 1-2000 character string). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high 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 specific action ('send a message'), target ('human worker on one of your tasks'), and purpose ('answer a clarifying question, add context, or follow up'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_task_messages' (read) or 'post_task' (create task) by focusing on communication within existing tasks.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to answer a clarifying question, add context, or follow up') and scoping ('messages are scoped to a single task'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'post_task' for initial task creation, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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