rlm_task_recover

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It defines 'stuck' and mentions dry-run preview, but does not detail what the 'recover' action does (e.g., reset state, re-queue, or delete). Missing behavioral traits like side effects, permissions, or rate limits.

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 sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second defines 'stuck', third provides a usage tip. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and definitions but lacks information about the return format (no output schema) and prerequisites (e.g., swarm membership). For a simple recovery tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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% (each parameter has a description). The description reiterates the dry_run usage but adds minimal new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 finds and recovers stuck canonical HierarchicalTask N3 tasks in a swarm, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rlm_task_claim or rlm_task_update by focusing on recovery of stuck 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?

The description defines what constitutes a stuck task (CLAIMED or IN_PROGRESS not updated within threshold) and advises using dry_run=true to preview, providing clear context for when to use the tool. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is well-defined.

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