aggregate_results

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 mentions the tool aggregates results and includes specific fields, but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, what happens if tasks are missing, or how results are returned. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('Aggregate results') and lists the included fields. It is appropriately concise, though it could have used the space to add more behavioral or usage context.

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?

Given the tool has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter structure, the return format, or how this differs from task_status/task_result. An agent would struggle to construct a correct call without opening the schema and guessing at the semantics of agent_id and task_id.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'tasks' parameter. The description says it aggregates results for multiple tasks, which implies the 'tasks' parameter identifies which tasks, but it doesn't explain the structure (array of objects with agent_id and task_id) or the meaning of those fields. The description adds some context but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 ('Aggregate') and resource ('results for multiple tasks'), and mentions the fields included ('missing_tools, status and output'). However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like task_status or task_result, which also deal with task results. The purpose is understandable but the differentiation from siblings is weak.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like task_status or task_result. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and description alone, which is insufficient given the overlapping sibling tools.

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