self_recovery

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 only says 'self-recovery' without explaining side effects, state changes, ownership requirements, or what happens during check/quick/review. Important behavioral context appears only inside parameter descriptions (e.g., continuity_token ownership proof), not in the tool description.

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 a single short sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is perhaps too terse to carry the behavioral detail needed for a 7-parameter tool with multiple modes.

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?

For a tool with 7 optional parameters, three action modes, and no output schema or annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain what distinguishes 'check', 'quick', and 'review', what the tool returns, or what prerequisites like continuity_token/client_session_id are for. The rich schema helps but the description itself is inadequate for complete context.

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%, and the parameter descriptions are detailed (e.g., action enum semantics, reflection requirements, ownership token caveats). The tool-level description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

The description states the tool is 'Unified self-recovery for stuck/paused agents,' which clearly identifies the domain and target condition. It does not use a strong action verb or explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like health_check or check_working_state, but the recovery intent is reasonably obvious.

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 phrase 'for stuck/paused agents' implies when the tool should be used. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer self_recovery over health_check or check_working_state, nor any stated exclusions or alternatives, so the usage context is only implied.

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