check_timeouts

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It transparently states that the tool mutates state by auto-retrying, escalating, and releasing tasks, and it flags dry_run as a non-destructive preview mode. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 about 35 words, front-loaded with the core scan-and-remediate behavior, and includes the key safety note about dry_run in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool does, what actions it takes, and how to preview changes safely. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 input schema already documents dry_run with 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to add much. It does reinforce the parameter's purpose by saying 'Use dry_run=true to preview actions without making changes,' but this is largely redundant with the schema description.

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 names a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('overdue and failed tasks'), then spells out the concrete actions: auto-retry, escalate, release. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling task-management tools like update_task or complete_task.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when there are overdue, failed, exhausted, or timed-out tasks needing automated handling. It also recommends using dry_run=true to preview actions, providing a clear safety-first usage context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions.

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