aiworkhub_quality_reviewer_launch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful trait: timeout_seconds is non-enforcing compatibility metadata and no wall-clock deadline is installed. However, it does not explain what 'DUAL-GATED' actually gates, what side effects launching a reviewer has, permission requirements, or whether the reviewer runs synchronously or asynchronously.

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 two sentences, front-loads the tool's purpose, and has no wasted language. The second sentence is an important compatibility caveat that directly earns its place by preventing misinterpretation of timeout_seconds.

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?

The tool has eight parameters, six of them required, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. Although an output schema exists, the description is far too sparse to cover input semantics, gating behavior, or invocation context, making correct use difficult without additional documentation.

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% across eight parameters, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning only for timeout_seconds; the six required parameters and the model parameter remain undocumented, and even the enum-bearing lens parameter gets no semantic explanation beyond its 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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'launch one independent anti-anchored quality reviewer.' That is more than a tautology and tells the agent what operation is performed, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from nearby review/quality siblings such as aiworkhub_quality_run_checks, aiworkhub_review_packet, or aiworkhub_task_review_queue.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor on prerequisites or when not to use it. The 'DUAL-GATED' label hints at a gating condition, but it is never defined, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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