evaluate_task

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the description carries most of the load — and it does well: no new LLM call, config-flag prerequisite, idempotent skipping of already-scored roles, and 'never changes the task's own state — purely a side record'. The only minor gap is that it doesn't say what happens when the engine is disabled (error vs no-op).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and mechanism, and each subsequent sentence carries a distinct, useful fact (prerequisite, skip behavior, alternative tool, state safety, result retrieval). Slightly dense with parenthetical asides and odd line wrapping, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description still points to get_task_evaluations for reading results. Combined with the prerequisite, idempotency, and state-safety notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly against a 4-parameter, non-read-only side-effect tool.

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%, so role, task_id, task_type and project_id are already fully documented in the schema, including the 'omit for current workstream task' default. The description reinforces 'every role' for the role parameter but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Score the latest successful execution of every role on this task') and immediately constrains the mechanism ('rule-based arithmetic; never a new LLM call'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling reevaluate_execution (single forced re-score) and get_task_evaluations (reads the results).

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: it skips roles already evaluated for their latest execution, and reevaluate_execution is named as the alternative when a fresh version is wanted. It also states the prerequisite that evaluation_engine must be enabled, including the exact config command.

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