check_task_integration

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well to disclose read-only local scope and the explicit non-actions (never merges, fetches, pushes, or substitutes another commit SHA). It does not say what happens on check failure, whether retries are rate limited, or what a retry actually re-evaluates.

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?

Three short sentences: purpose and scope first, then parameter provenance, then the safety boundary. No filler and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the safety profile but leaves the actorLabel parameter and the outcome of a failed retry unexplained, so an agent still has gaps before calling it correctly.

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%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It only covers expectedReviewId, and even then only its source ('from get_task'); taskId is unmentioned and actorLabel is never addressed at all.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Retry the local read-only Git integration check', scoped to 'an already accepted latest review'. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like approve_review or get_task, though the boundary with other review-related tools is only implied.

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 precondition ('for an already accepted latest review') and the instruction to take the id from get_task give useful context, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative tool for the case where a check should be started rather than retried.

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