claude_turn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that it returns structured pending/unknown/completed statuses and does not parse human-facing error strings, but it omits side-effect details: issuing or recovering durable operations is likely mutative, and there is no mention of idempotency, blocking behavior, or what 'durable' means concretely.

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 dense sentence with no filler and front-loads the tool's purpose and caller type. It earns its space by differentiating from Observer logic and specifying the status output, though the heavy slash-notation and untranslated Japanese jargon reduce readability.

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 two actions, three required parameters, one conditional optional parameter, and no annotations, the description leaves action-selection rules, parameter relationships, and side effects largely implicit. An output schema exists, so return values need less explanation, but the agent still lacks enough guidance to safely choose recover vs issue or know when to provide text.

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 only 25%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning. It never explains action='issue' vs action='recover', what session_id or operation_id represent beyond their names, or the conditional role of text, even though text is relevant only to issue. The schema enum and sha256 pattern help, but the prose does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 and resource: it issues/recover durable operations for Claude sessions and returns pending/unknown/completed statuses structurally, without parsing human-facing error strings. It also explicitly says it has no Observer-specific logic, which helps separate it from pty_observe and diagnostics siblings, though terms like 'aiterm相関付き' and 'durable operation' are left unexplained.

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 'machine-caller専用面' and 'Observer固有ロジックは持たない' imply it is for automated callers that need structured status rather than for observers or humans reading error messages. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so usage guidance is mostly left to inference.

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