rlm_task_complete

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

No annotations provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It states 'completes or fails' but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or what constitutes completion/failure. The legacy input format 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 sentence, which is concise, but it is somewhat terse and includes jargon ('canonical', 'N3'). It front-loads the purpose but could be more structured.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the interaction between 'success' and 'result', the meaning of 'legacy queue-style inputs', or the tool's relationship to rlm_htask_complete. Essential context for correct invocation is missing.

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 only 20% (only 'result' has a description). The tool's description adds no parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. It mentions 'legacy queue-style inputs' but does not clarify how parameters map to that.

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 completes or fails a HierarchicalTask N3 task, using verb 'completes or fails' and resource 'canonical HierarchicalTask N3 task'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling rlm_htask_complete, and 'legacy queue-style inputs' is vague.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The term 'compatibility alias' implies legacy usage, but there is no directive to use rlm_htask_complete for new implementations.

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