github_force_reduce_session

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses trigger conditions and two policies, but 'force-reduces' implies a mutating/recovery action without stating side effects, reversibility, permissions, or what actually happens to the session and workers. For a 'force' operation, this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded with the 'Resilience Tool' category and minimal redundancy. Every sentence contributes useful context, and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter recovery tool, the trigger condition and policy options are present. However, there is no mention of return value, side effects, or how this relates to the normal orchestration flow, and no output schema compensates. It is adequate but leaves operational gaps.

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?

The input schema documents both parameters at 100% coverage with clear descriptions. The description's second sentence only paraphrases the missing_worker_policy enum, adding no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 operation ('force-reduces an orchestration session') and immediately scopes it to failure conditions ('orphaned, times out, or fails'). This clearly distinguishes it from normal orchestration and status-checking sibling tools, even though 'reduce' is somewhat domain-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 explicitly frames the tool as a 'Resilience Tool' and defines the triggering scenarios: worker orphaned, timeout, or failure. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.

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