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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return format ('JSON with total, open, claimed, done, failed counts plus a per-role breakdown'), which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return format. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Return a summary...'), and the second sentence adds necessary detail without redundancy. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., avoiding the indentation in the quoted text).

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 complexity (simple read operation with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which likely documents the return structure), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the format of the output, which is sufficient for a tool of this nature. However, it lacks context on when to use it versus siblings, which slightly reduces 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, with 100% schema description coverage (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately focuses on the output. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools, as there's no parameter information to compensate for or enhance.

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 tool's purpose: 'Return a summary of all task counts from the Bernstein server.' This is a specific verb ('Return') with a clear resource ('task counts'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bernstein_tasks' or 'bernstein_health'. The description avoids tautology and provides meaningful context about what the tool does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'bernstein_tasks' (which might list individual tasks) or 'bernstein_health' (which might check server status), nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description, with no explicit context for selection.

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