complete_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a finalizing/mutating operation but does not disclose whether the action is irreversible, whether operator permissions are required, or what happens to the task unit after closure. The '[OPERATOR]' prefix hints at privileged use but is not explained.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action without any wasted words. The '[OPERATOR]' prefix provides useful context about the tool's intended audience without adding bulk.

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 consequential close/finalize operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain whether the retrospective is required (schema shows it is not), whether closure can be reversed, what the resulting state is, or any side effects. The schema covers parameters but not the behavioral context needed for an AI agent to safely invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions already define 'Final status' and 'What went well, what didn't'. The description's mention of 'final status and retrospective' adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb 'Close' with a clear resource 'task unit' and specifies the action includes final status and retrospective. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like complete_action by focusing on task-level closure rather than general action completion.

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 implies the tool is used when closing a task unit, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling complete_action could be confused with this, and no differentiation is provided.

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