cos_task_reconcile

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by specifying the output includes completion evidence and a review recommendation, giving agents a sense of what to expect. It does not contradict any annotation.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase ('Triage', 'stranded in_progress/testing tasks', 'completion evidence', 'review recommendation', 'read-only') earns its place, though 'read-only' duplicates the annotation.

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 tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, strong annotations, and an output schema), the description is largely sufficient: it communicates purpose, scope, and output nature. The only notable gap is the unstated semantics of include_active, but since it defaults to false and has no required equivalent, the invocation risk is low.

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 provides one boolean parameter (include_active) with no description (0% coverage), and the description does not mention it at all. This leaves the meaning of the flag and its effect on the stranded-task scope unclear; the parameter name gives only a partial clue.

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 'Triage' with a clear resource ('stranded in_progress/testing tasks') and the added outcome ('completion evidence + a review recommendation'), making it distinct from other cos_task_* tools. It also explicitly marks the tool as read-only, reinforcing its scope.

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 tool's intended use is clear: reconcile/triage stranded tasks in specific states, which gives an agent a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria compared with sibling tools like cos_task_reclaim or cos_task_show, but the target scenario is strongly implied.

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