work

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides some useful behavioral context by declaring the work is 'Bounded' and that 'Caps apply server-side,' and it sketches the lifecycle (start/tick/yield/resume). It does not, however, disclose auth requirements, state-mutation effects, failure behavior, or what the caps actually are, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 tight sentence with no filler; every clause adds information about an operation or a constraint. It is front-loaded with the domain and constraint. The downside is heavy jargon ('plot', 'trail', 'wake links') that compresses meaning, but the structure itself is efficient.

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 14-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations and multiple sibling tools, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the session lifecycle (e.g., start likely produces a sessionId that later ops need), what 'Bounded' or 'Caps' concretely mean, what the return value is, or how this relates to create_session, wake, and handoff. An agent would struggle to invoke the multi-op workflow correctly.

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 only 57%, with several parameters (requiredBadges, requiredSkills, capabilityScope, maxSteps, ticks) lacking descriptions. The text helps conceptually group parameters by naming 'continuation bindings' and 'trail and wake links,' which maps to autoHandoff/resumeWakeId and trailHash/wakeEventId, but it leaves key parameters unexplained and does not compensate for the full 14-parameter surface.

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 operation domain: 'Bounded Garden work via Gateway' and enumerates four concrete operations (start, tick, yield, resume). It is not a tautology and gives an agent a working idea of the tool's resource and actions, though it doesn't explicitly compare itself to sibling 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?

The phrase 'Bounded Garden work via Gateway' and the op list imply the tool is used to drive bounded work sessions, and the mention of 'resume citing trail and wake links' implies a continuation workflow. However, it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like create_session, wake, or handoff, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites such as needing a session first.

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