task_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it names the side effects (runs tests, executes the observable harness, inspects git diff, enforces contract rules) and critically discloses the automatic repair-task creation on failure. It stops short of stating anything about idempotency, whether the call blocks until the gate finishes, or permission requirements.

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?

Three tight sentences: action first, then the concrete mechanics, then the failure consequence. Front-loaded and every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description usefully covers the most important outcome an agent needs to know (failure triggers an automatic repair task). It lacks detail on what a successful verification returns and whether the call is synchronous, leaving a small gap for a gate tool.

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 four parameters including customTestCommand are documented in the schema. The description mentions that tests are run but adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits a task for verification through the Completion Gate') and enumerates the concrete checks performed. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like task_fail or contract_verify, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Submits a task for verification,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to call this instead of task_fail, contract_verify, or integration_verify, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the context.

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