rlm_htask_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'close' (implying mutation) and 'if policy allows', but omits critical details such as whether the action is reversible, what happens to child tasks, or any side effects. The description does not adequately compensate for missing annotations.

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 very concise, consisting of only two short sentences. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the presence of sibling tools like rlm_htask_complete, the description could better explain the distinction between closing and completing a parent task, and provide more detail on the implications of closing. As it stands, it is minimally complete.

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 description adds value by explaining that 'waiver_reason' and 'waiver_approved_by' are for exceptions when policy allows. This enhances understanding beyond the schema descriptions alone.

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 clearly states 'Close a parent task', using a specific verb and resource. It indicates optional waiver functionality, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rlm_htask_complete or rlm_htask_verify_closure, which may overlap in purpose.

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 provides guidance on using waiver parameters when closing with exceptions, but does not offer when-to-use advice relative to alternatives, nor exclusions or prerequisites. Usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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