architect_runtime_tick

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only that it continues expired notify waits; it does not disclose what state changes, whether notifications are emitted, or what happens when no waits have expired.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and every word is doing work. It is arguably too terse for the opaque domain term, but structurally there is no wasted text.

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 mutation tool with many runtime siblings, key context is missing: what a 'tick' actually does, what side effects occur, and how it relates to architect_runtime_next or architect_runtime_recheck. Annotations and full schema coverage help, but the core operational concept remains unexplained.

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%; both 'workspace' and the optional 'run' are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond those structured fields, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Continue') and resource ('notify waits whose deadline passed'), but 'notify wait' is unexplained jargon and the description never relates it to the architect_runtime_* sibling family (next, recheck, status). An agent can infer it resumes expired waits, but cannot confidently distinguish it from related runtime 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative named. The 'deadline passed' condition describes the waits rather than telling the agent when it should call this tool versus architect_runtime_next or architect_runtime_recheck. Only a weak implication of usage is present.

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