claude_turn

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns structured statuses (pending/unknown/completed) and that it does not contain Observer-specific logic, which is useful. Still, it does not explain the side effects or durability semantics of 'issue' and 'recover' actions, or any preconditions.

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?

It is a single sentence, so it is compact, but the density of technical terms (aiterm, durable operation, Observer) without elaboration makes it less readable. It is not verbose, but borderline under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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 no annotations, four parameters, and an output schema that is not referenced, the description leaves many gaps: what actions are available, what correlates with aiterm, what 'recover' means, and what the returned statuses imply. It gives only a vague overview without enough operational detail for an agent to confidently invoke the 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?

The description contains zero mention of the four parameters. Schema coverage is only 25% (only 'text' has a description), yet the description does nothing to compensate for the missing meaning of 'action', 'session_id', or 'operation_id'.

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 clearly states a specific function: 'issue/recover durable operations on Claude sessions' for machine callers. It also notes the structured status returns (pending/unknown/completed) and the lack of Observer-specific logic, helping it stand apart from agent-focused sibling tools like claude_agent. However, the heavy use of jargon (aiterm, durable operation) slightly detracts from immediate clarity.

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 'machine-caller dedicated surface' implies its intended audience, and the statement about returning pending/unknown/completed 'without parsing human-oriented error strings' suggests a use case. Yet there is no explicit 'when to use' or comparison with alternative tools, leaving guidance largely implicit.

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