merge_completed_tasks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the merge action without detailing side effects (e.g., whether it is destructive, conflict handling, permission requirements, or impact on the working branch). The agent lacks critical safety information for a mutation operation.

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 very concise (one sentence), but it front-loads the core action efficiently. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting essential details that could be included without verbosity. It earns its place but could be slightly expanded to improve completeness.

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 5 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not cover what the output schema contains, error conditions, or the scope of 'completed tasks.' For a merge operation with multiple parameters and sibling tools, more context is necessary for safe and correct usage.

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%, and the description adds no context about parameters. The 5 parameters (session_id, repo_path, base_branch, strategy, caller_agent_id) are not explained; the description does not mention what 'working branch' refers to or how parameters control behavior. The agent cannot map the action to parameter values.

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 action ('merge the working branch of completed tasks into base_branch'), providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cleanup_workspace or check_all_tasks_completed, which focus on different aspects of task management. However, it is slightly vague on which completed tasks are targeted (e.g., all or a specific session), leaving some ambiguity.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., all tasks completed) or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Siblings like check_all_tasks_completed and cleanup_on_completion may be related, but the description does not clarify relationships or order of operations.

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