reply_task

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return format is the same as run_task (waiting or done), but does not disclose side effects such as whether the reply mutates task state, whether replies can be sent multiple times, or what happens if the task is not waiting. 'Send a reply' implies an action, but the consequences are not explained.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and trigger, and contains no filler. Every sentence contributes necessary context: when to call it and what to expect as a return.

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 annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the tool is simple (two required scalar params) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values in depth. It mentions the return format and trigger, which is enough for basic invocation. It falls short only in behavioral and parameter detail, which are already penalized separately.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter guidance. It only implies 'message' is the reply content, and does not clarify the role of task_id (e.g., that it comes from run_task) or describe valid message formats. The parameter names are self-explanatory to a degree, but the description adds little semantic value beyond those names.

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 a specific verb ('Send a reply') and a specific resource/target (HermitAgent) with an explicit trigger condition ('when run_task returned {status:"waiting"}'). This distinguishes it from siblings like run_task, check_task, and cancel_task by defining its role as the follow-up action for waiting 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 provides a clear context for use ('when run_task returned {status:"waiting"}') and mentions the return format consistency with run_task. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger condition is specific enough to guide selection among sibling tools.

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