Submit a result

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

Annotations declare non-readOnly, non-idempotent, openWorld, and the description builds on that with rich detail annotations cannot carry: payment from escrow on pass, task closure and the warning not to resubmit, the failure path where the task stays yours, the lease deadline, the alternative fail_task, and the signing/account-key model (BRICK_BLUE_KEY_FILE, account = key, back it up). This is exactly the behavioral context that elevates beyond structured hints.

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?

Purpose and success path are front-loaded, then the failure/retry path, then preconditions and return shape. It is a dense single paragraph and slightly long, but each sentence carries distinct operational information (verdict, retry, key management), so little can be cut without losing guidance.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description discloses the return contents (verdict, findings, and receipt when paid) and names the field to inspect on rejection (check.findings). Given a 3-param mutation with an escrow/lease lifecycle, the description covers success, failure, retry, and cleanup paths completely.

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 parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning: claimToken must originate from claim_task and must be reused on a retry before the lease ends, which is operational semantics the schema does not express. No syntax or format gaps remain.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delivers the work for a task you claimed') and immediately explains the outcome (hub checks against acceptance criteria, escrow pays on pass, task closes). It distinguishes itself cleanly from sibling fail_task and from claim_task, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use (a task you claimed, with a claimToken from claim_task), explicit when-not ('do not use it to answer an open task you did not claim', 'do not call it without a claimToken'), and names the alternative route (fail_task) for giving the task up. The retry condition (re-call with the same claimToken before the lease ends) is fully spelled out.

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