task_adopt

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It lists three internal checks, which is useful, but it omits side effects, outcome, or return value—essentially whether the tool actually adopts the task or merely tests adoptability.

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 entire description is one concise, front-loaded sentence with a clear list structure. The telegraphic style and jargon reduce readability slightly, but no words are wasted.

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?

This is a specialized tool with a non-obvious adoption workflow and no output schema or annotations. The description omits parameter semantics, return format, side effects, and usage context, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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 single parameter jobDir is neither described nor contextualized in the description. The mention of lock/pid/startSec hints that jobDir contains a lock file, but the link is implicit and the description adds no concrete meaning for the parameter.

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 specifies an adoption check with three concrete evidence components (lock pid:startSec, process liveness, exit protocol read), giving a clear function distinct from sibling run/wait/output/autopsy/kill tools. However, it never explains what 'adoption' means or what the tool actually does beyond checking.

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 phrase 'adoption check' implies the tool is for adopting a task, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it over alternative tools like task_run, task_wait, or task_autopsy. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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