send_instruction

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 explicitly states that running tasks are stopped before resuming, a critical side effect. It does not cover other states (e.g., failed) or potential errors, but the disclosed behavior is meaningful and helpful.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the special behavior for running tasks is added as a separate clarifying clause. Every word earns its place.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and behavioral nuance. It does not explain the mode parameter's effect or expected return, but these are either covered by the schema or not essential for invoking the tool correctly. The description is adequate, though it could mention more about post-resume outcomes.

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 all parameters (task_id, message, mode) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score 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 ('send instruction'), resource ('task'), and target states (completed or stopped), and explicitly notes the behavior for running tasks (stop then resume). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like dispatch_task (creating new tasks) and stop_task (only stopping).

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 implies when to use the tool—for resuming sessions of completed/stopped tasks—and explains the special case for running tasks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of sibling tools and the described behavior makes the usage scenario clear.

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