validate_task_loop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions duration tracking, attempt error logging, and live streaming via progress notifications, which adds value. However, it omits critical behaviors: whether the tool modifies graph state, what happens on validation failure, and whether it requires an existing node.

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 long and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds useful context (duration tracking, error logging, streaming) without redundancy or fluff.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description must explain return values and side effects. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether it throws exceptions, or how errors are surfaced. The streaming mention is helpful, but the overall completeness is lacking for a command-executing tool with timeout and override options.

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 schema already documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, such as how commandOverride interacts with the default validation command or how timeoutMs is used. It does not compensate for missing schema detail, but none is needed.

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 executes a validation command for a task node, which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also mentions duration tracking and streaming, which adds context beyond the name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling validate_parallel_tasks, and the name 'validate_task_loop' is not fully explained.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_parallel_tasks or start_task. It does not provide any context about when this is the appropriate choice, prerequisites, or situations to avoid.

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