aiworkhub_task_stale_recovery_recommend

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description adds substantive behavior: it produces recommendations only, never invokes taskctl write commands, and never kills a process — exactly the reassurance an agent needs before running a 'recovery' tool. It also hints at truncation via bounds.truncated. It stops short of describing how recommendations are shaped or whether any state is persisted.

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 read-only guarantee is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by scope semantics and then the non-mutation disclaimer. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical '(see bounds.truncated)' is slightly cryptic without the output schema in view.

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?

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return shapes, and it covers the safety profile, both modes, and three of four parameters. Only the topic parameter remains undocumented, which is a minor but real gap for a zero-required-param 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and mostly does: it defines the two scope values, explains that limit bounds the cards read (surfacing bounds.truncated) and that sample bounds rows listed per group. The fourth parameter, topic, is never explained, leaving one gap.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement ('recommend recovery actions for stale processing tasks or blocked cards') and makes the advisory-only nature explicit. It does not name the closely-related mutation siblings (e.g. aiworkhub_task_recover_blocked_rework, aiworkhub_manager_reconcile_dead_processing), so an agent must infer the boundary from the 'recommend' vs 'recover' wording.

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?

It clearly explains the two operating modes and when each applies: scope="processing" (default) for stale processing tasks, scope="blocked" to triage the blocked-card queue. What's missing is routing guidance against alternatives such as the recover/reconcile tools, which would be the natural next step after a recommendation.

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