ck_task

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

Given the absence of annotations, the description does a fair job of disclosing behavioral traits. For instance, it notes that 'complete' mode is blocked if unresolved findings exist, and it clarifies that 'heartbeat' signals the agent is alive. Still, it omits details on side effects, permissions, or concurrency.

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 concise, fitting the purpose and mode list into a single paragraph. It front-loads the main goal. However, the dense listing of modes in sentence form could be slightly improved with structural elements like bullet points.

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 all six modes and mentions key constraints (e.g., blocked if unresolved findings). Since an output schema exists, return values are documented elsewhere. Still, it does not explicitly connect parameters to modes (e.g., that 'checks' mode requires the 'checks' parameter) nor detail required versus optional parameters beyond the schema.

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%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds context for the 'mode' parameter by explaining each mode's behavior, but it does not enhance understanding of other parameters like 'checks', 'metadata', or 'output' beyond what the schema provides.

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 that the tool manages governed tasks within a session and enumerates six distinct modes with brief explanations. This specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like ck_finding or ck_review_submit.

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 lists the modes with one-liner purposes, offering some guidance on when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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