reconcile_tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that only runs with a dead owning process are affected and that live processes are never touched. It also clarifies the marking as INTERRUPTED and the automatic behavior, providing meaningful safety context.

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 and well-structured. It opens with the core action, then explains the problem and the safeguard, and ends with an important automatic behavior note. Every sentence contributes valuable information without 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, scope, safety, and automatic triggering, which is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty. Therefore, there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to compensate for missing schema information, making the baseline score of 4 appropriate.

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: closing out runs whose owning Fluxion process no longer exists. It uses specific language like 'marks those INTERRUPTED' and distinguishes itself from related tools by focusing on reconciliation, not listing or cancellation.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is relevant: after a process dies mid-run, leaving tasks stuck as RUNNING. It also notes automatic invocation at Fluxion startup, which helps the user understand when manual use is necessary. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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