architect_runtime_recheck

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

Annotations already disclose that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds that it 'carries no authority' and that an unapproved wait simply waits again. That is meaningful behavioral context. It still does not explain what changes on a successful approved recheck, why repeated calls are non-idempotent, or what side effects occur.

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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the action. Both sentences carry information, though the second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic rather than fully explanatory.

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 non-idempotent runtime-state operation with no output schema and many closely named runtime siblings, the description is too thin. It does not explain what a 'ledger' is, what rechecking actually changes, or how this differs from status/next/tick calls.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about 'run' or 'workspace' beyond that, which fits the baseline of 3 when the schema carries parameter semantics.

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 gives a rough verb and object ('Re-read the ledgers') plus a timing condition ('after a human decided'), so the agent can infer a refresh/recheck action. But 'ledgers' is unexplained jargon, and the description does not distinguish this from runtime_status, runtime_next, or runtime_tick. The purpose is only partially clear.

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?

It says to use this after a human decided, which is a useful temporal cue. However, it gives no explicit alternative or exclusion: an agent cannot tell from the description whether to call runtime_status, runtime_next, or runtime_tick instead in related situations.

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