herdr_owned_reviewer_close

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 does disclose a key behavior: it refuses blocked/working reviewers and requires condition matching. However, it doesn't mention any side effects like lease release, return values, or error handling, leaving some behavioral aspects opaque.

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?

A single, dense sentence conveys the core operation, conditions, and refusal behavior with no filler. Every clause adds value, and the key scoping constraint ('only an idle or done reviewer') is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters with no schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema. The description explains the general use case and refusal condition but omits necessary details like what each parameter means (especially expected_state_change_seq, controller_fence_token), what 'capture' implies, or what success/failure looks like. It leaves the agent undersupplied for safe invocation.

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 0%, and the description mentions nothing about the six parameters. It refers to 'lease' and matching conditions, but doesn't explain any parameter's purpose, syntax, or relationship. With zero compensation from the description, parameter semantics are entirely absent.

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 a specific verb combination ('capture and close') with a clear resource ('reviewer') and constraints (idle or done, with matching pane/agent/name/cwd/controller/lease). It distinguishes this from other reviewer tools like start, list, and cleanup by specifying the condition for operation.

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 explicitly states the condition for use ('only an idle or done reviewer') and the refusal condition ('Blocked or working reviewers are refused'). This gives clear when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, though it doesn't name alternative sibling tools for other states.

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