bernstein_complete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the refusal behavior for invalid states and the host effect of making network requests. However, it does not mention reversibility, authentication, or other potential side effects beyond completing the task.

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 concise, with three short sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds the state constraint and a host effect note. Every sentence is informative and there is no redundancy.

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?

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key constraint, but parameter semantics are under-specified. An agent may need to infer the expected content of result_summary, making the description adequate but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'task result' generically, leaving task_id and result_summary to name inference. No additional semantic guidance is given for their format or content beyond the schema's constraints.

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's function: 'Report a task result' and 'completes the task on the Bernstein server.' It also specifies the allowed worker-held states, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bernstein_claim, bernstein_cancel, and bernstein_approve.

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 gives explicit context for when to use the tool by listing valid task statuses ('open, claimed, or in_progress') and stating that other statuses are refused. It does not name alternative tools, but the state constraint effectively communicates the appropriate usage scenario.

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