Check if Task is Complete

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. It states the tool returns a 'PASS/FAIL decision rule to apply,' but doesn't explain how the verification works (e.g., what 'quoted evidence' entails, whether it's a read-only check, potential side effects, or error handling). For a verification tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that convey the core purpose and outcome. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, making it efficient. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the action from the result for enhanced clarity.

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 complexity of a verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how verification is performed, what 'quoted evidence' means), usage context, and return values. This makes it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation and implications.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('project_path' and 'task_id') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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: 'instructs the agent to verify acceptance criteria checkboxes for a task with quoted evidence. Returns a PASS/FAIL decision rule to apply.' It specifies the verb ('verify'), resource ('acceptance criteria checkboxes for a task'), and outcome ('PASS/FAIL decision rule'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'task-executor' or 'task-orchestrator', which might handle task execution rather than verification.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It mentions 'Prompt-only verification' and 'instructs the agent to verify acceptance criteria checkboxes,' but doesn't specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'task-executor' or 'task-orchestrator,' nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of explicit context leaves usage unclear.

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