check_all_tasks_completed

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

No annotations exist, but the description discloses the tool's behavior: checks task counts, treats failed tasks as incomplete, and is restricted to the owner. It also lists return fields, providing good transparency beyond the name.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, conditions, access, arguments, and returns. It is reasonably concise, though the Japanese and English mix could be streamlined.

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, the description covers purpose, behavioral conditions, access control, parameter meaning, and return fields. An output schema exists, but the description adequately explains return values. The tool is simple and the description is complete.

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 only parameter caller_agent_id is described as '必須' (required) but the input schema allows null and has no required list, creating a contradiction. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond the schema's name.

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 the tool checks if all tasks are completed, defines completion conditions (pending=0, in_progress=0, failed=0), and excludes tasks with failed status. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_task_queue or list_tasks.

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 description mentions 'Owner のみ使用可能' (owner only), providing a usage condition. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_gtr_available or get_task_status, leaving the context implied.

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