rlm_htask_verify_closure

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions return values (blockers, waiver requirements) but does not state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects. More detail on what 'verify' entails (e.g., no state change) would improve transparency.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose in the first sentence and supporting details in the second. No extraneous words.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient information: purpose, inputs implicitly, and outputs. However, it could elaborate on what 'closure policy' entails or examples of blockers.

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?

Both parameters (swarm_id, task_id) have basic descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: to verify if a parent task can be closed by checking children status against closure policy and returning blockers and waiver requirements. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like rlm_htask_close or rlm_htask_block, as it is a verification step.

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 usage context (before closing a task) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rlm_htask_get or rlm_htask_audit_trail. It lacks 'when to use' and 'when not to use' guidance.

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