taskops_review

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: 'one verifier per card' (exclusivity), 'full dossier back' (return info), 'the worker's lease untouched' (no impact on worker), 'note reaches the worker verbatim' (note transparency), and the self-review ban. This is substantial context beyond the schema.

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 and front-loads the tool's purpose. It uses cryptic capitalization and punctuation, but every clause adds information. It could be clearer on the two-step process.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior. It explains the claim vs judge modes, the exclusivity, the dossier return, and the self-review rule. However, it doesn't detail the structure of the 'full dossier' or error conditions, but for a 5-param tool with schema descriptions, it's reasonably 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?

The description adds meaning to key parameters: task is the submitted card, verdict accepts pass|changes, and note is passed verbatim. The schema already has detailed descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description builds on that by explaining the workflow.

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 identifies this as the verification/review tool: 'THE verifier's one door' and explains it claims a submitted card and judges it with verdict=pass|changes. It distinguishes implicitly from siblings by being the only review tool.

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?

It states the workflow: claim a card (task=...) and then judge with verdict and note. It adds a key constraint: 'You may never judge your own work.' However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives beyond calling itself the 'one door', but the workflow is clear.

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