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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return payload (status values, parsed_files, project structure), but it does not state whether the call is read-only/idempotent, whether it returns immediately or blocks while the subagent runs, or what happens with an invalid/expired task_id. No contradiction exists because no annotations were provided.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core verb and resource; the second compactly lists return values including the exact status enum. Every clause earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of explaining return values and does it well. However, it omits workflow decision guidance — what the agent should do given each status and that this tool sits between submit_task and continue_task/verify_task/extract_and_write_files. For a simple one-parameter tool this is adequate, but an agent must infer the polling loop and next-step routing from sibling names alone.

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% — task_id is already documented in the schema as the identifier obtained from mcp_qwen_submit_task. The tool description adds no meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, 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 a specific verb and resource — 'Проверяет статус выполнения задачи субагентом Qwen' (checks the status of a Qwen subagent task) — and adds the returned status enum (RUNNING, COMPLETED, NEED_CONTINUATION, ERROR), parsed_files, and project structure. This makes its purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it functionally from siblings like submit_task, continue_task, verify_task, extract_and_write_files, and get/set_config.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the schema's parameter description ties task_id to mcp_qwen_submit_task, and the status enum hints at a polling workflow, but the description never states when to call this tool versus mcp_qwen_verify_task, nor how to react to each status (e.g., NEED_CONTINUATION routing to continue_task). There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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

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 does add the context that the tool sends a command to a subagent rather than performing the generation itself, which is useful, but it fails to mention side effects, whether the call is asynchronous, idempotency, failure modes, or what happens to the current session when invoked.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('sends a command') and then specifies the target, scope, and context. There is no filler or redundant detail; every part of the sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left unsure what the call actually returns, whether it blocks or completes asynchronously, and how it relates to mcp_qwen_extract_and_write_files for handling generated files. The description covers purpose but not enough of the operational context needed to invoke the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both task_id and instruction, and the instruction example is helpful. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('sends a command to continue generation') and clearly identifies the resource ('subagent Qwen' within the current task session). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_task, check_status, verify_task, and config-related tools without needing to inspect schemas.

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 verb 'continue' and phrase 'within the current task session' imply the tool should be used after a task has already been submitted and generation has paused. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no direct comparison to alternatives like mcp_qwen_submit_task.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a key guarantee (100% verbatim write, no code modifications) and automatic subfolder creation, which are useful. However, it omits overwrite behavior, permissions, error handling, and return value, and uses vague 'safely' without specifics.

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?

Two sentences front-load the action and the key verbatim guarantee, then add the subfolder behavior. The all-caps emphasis is slightly loud, but there is almost no waste.

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 file-writing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete: it does not state whether existing files are overwritten, what the function returns on success/failure, or any prerequisites. The subfolder note is helpful, but an agent still lacks critical operational details.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that task_id and raw_content are alternative sources and that target_directory receives the files unchanged, but it does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

Description states a specific action (extract generated Qwen files and write them to disk) with a clear verb and resource, plus the crucial verbatim guarantee and subfolder creation. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but its role as a write-to-disk step is distinct from the task lifecycle tools.

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 implies it is used after Qwen file generation ('generated Qwen files') and hints at two input modes via task_id/raw_content, but it offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never names alternatives among the siblings. An agent must infer that this step follows submit_task/continue_task.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns configuration data, including specific fields, which implies a read-only, non-mutating operation. It does not explicitly mention side effects or failure modes, but for a config getter the 'returns' verb and field listing provide sufficient behavioral clarity.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that states the action and the exact return fields. No filler, no redundancy, and the key information is front-loaded in the verb and resource.

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 no-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned values (mode, debug port, connection status), giving an agent a clear idea of what it will receive. It could mention that the output is a structured object or describe the status representation, but that is minor for this simple tool.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description does not need to add parameter information.

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 uses the specific verb 'Returns' with the resource 'current Qwen connection configuration' and lists the exact fields (mode, debug port, connection status). This clearly distinguishes it from the task-oriented siblings and from the complementary set_config tool.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving current configuration, so usage is apparent. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus mcp_qwen_set_config or other siblings, nor any prerequisites or conditions. Guidance is implied by the verb and resource rather than stated.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Updating config implies a mutation, but the description does not mention persistence, side effects, validation, permission requirements, or whether changes apply immediately. This is a significant gap for a write operation.

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 sentence that is compact and front-loaded: the verb and resource appear first, followed by the parameter list. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 config-mutation tool with five parameters and no output schema, this description is insufficient. It does not explain what the parameters mean, how they interact, what a successful result looks like, or what side effects might occur. The agent would need additional knowledge to call it confidently.

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 only lists the parameter names (mode, apiKey, apiBaseUrl, model, cdpPort) without adding meanings, types, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema field names already convey.

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 a specific verb ('Обновляет' / updates) and resource (MCP server configuration parameters), listing the affected fields. It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the read-only sibling get_config other than by the verb.

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 intended usage is implied by the description: use this tool when you need to update MCP server config parameters. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, nor any mention that get_config should be used for reading current settings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the orchestrator-only role, the strict no-paraphrasing rule, the need to collect and pass full context, and the mandatory 60-second timer polling behavior. This goes beyond the schema and reveals important operational consequences (async delegation, external Qwen Studio/API involvement).

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 contains essential information but is somewhat verbose and repetitive, especially the all-caps rule about not paraphrasing which echoes the schema description. The purpose is front-loaded, but the length and emphatic formatting make it less concise than it could be.

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?

The description covers the core workflow: what to pass, how to behave as orchestrator, and the mandatory polling loop. It does not explicitly describe the returned task_id or failure/error handling, but the reference to mcp_qwen_check_status(task_id) strongly implies it. Given no output schema and no annotations, this is reasonably complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats the parameter guidance already in the schema (e.g., original unmodified user_prompt, passing skills_content). It adds no new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Делегирует задачу субагенту Qwen 3.8 Max' (delegates a task to the Qwen subagent). This is a specific verb+resource description that distinguishes it from the sibling tools such as check_status, continue_task, and verify_task.

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 strong workflow instructions: pass the original prompt unmodified, gather context, and poll via mcp_qwen_check_status after invoking. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like mcp_qwen_continue_task or mcp_qwen_verify_task, leaving the selection criteria implied.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the core interaction: sending the assembled structure, attaching error logs and problematic files on failure, and the two possible Qwen responses ('ПРОЕКТ_СОБРАН_ВЕРНО' or corrected files). It does not cover timeouts, failures, or side effects, but the main behavior is clearly communicated.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the step label, then covers the operation, the error-path payload, and the expected outcome. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 workflow tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description provides the invocation context, the conditional payload, and the expected result alternatives. It does not specify the exact response format for corrected files or failure behavior, but the schema covers the parameter shapes and the description gives enough operational context for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful conditional semantics beyond the schema: error_log and troubled_files are attached only when the build had errors, and assembled_structure is the project tree being verified. It does not add format or value-level details, but it does clarify when optional parameters should be populated.

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 names a specific verb ('Отправляет'), a concrete resource ('структуру собранного проекта и отчет о сборке/ошибках'), and a clear recipient ('субагенту Qwen'). The 'ШАГ 6 ВЕРИФИКАЦИИ' label and stated outcomes ('подтверждает' or 'возвращает исправленные файлы') make it clearly distinguishable from the sibling submit/check/continue tools.

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 'ШАГ 6 ВЕРИФИКАЦИИ' prefix provides clear workflow context, and the conditional sentence 'Если проект собран с ошибками...' explains when the error-related payload is needed. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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