trinity_latest

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: by default it skips secondary review children so the returned task is the user-facing parent, and include_reviews=true changes that behavior.

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 three focused sentences that are front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then behavior. Every sentence contributes, and there is no filler, though it is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately indicates the key return value ('returned primary task id') and the default filtering behavior. It covers the essential call context and follow-up step, though it could briefly note the broader return shape.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description restates the effect of include_reviews but adds no new semantic detail such as format, constraints, or edge cases beyond what the schema 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 verb ('Recover') and resource ('newest task submitted by one source agent'), and scopes it to 'when the task id is unknown.' It distinguishes itself from a generic task lookup, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like trinity_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?

It gives a clear triggering scenario: 'after an interrupted MCP wait or lost client response,' and prescribes the follow-up call to trinity_status. It also clarifies the optional include_reviews flag, but offers no when-not conditions or alternative tools for similar needs.

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