Bernstein - Multi-agent orchestration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that this tool changes task status to 'complete' and records an approval note, which are key behavioral traits. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like notifications, permission requirements, or error conditions.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage context, parameters, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The description is appropriately sized for a 2-parameter tool with clear functionality.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (state-changing operation), no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. However, it could benefit from mentioning authentication needs or error handling for full completeness.

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. It explains both parameters: task_id ('ID of the task to approve') and note ('Optional approval note recorded as the result summary'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's basic titles. The default value for note is mentioned in the schema but not in the description.

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 the specific action ('Approve'), the target resource ('a pending or blocked task'), and the outcome ('marking it complete'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like bernstein_status (check status) or bernstein_tasks (list tasks) by focusing on the approval function.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'for approval gates — when a task is awaiting human sign-off before proceeding.' This provides clear context and distinguishes it from alternatives like bernstein_run (execute) or bernstein_stop (cancel).

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