turn

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

With annotations already declaring the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description adds useful behavioral detail: finish runs `actions` rows and waits until the turn returns, end ends the turn only, and wait blocks until it is my turn. It also explains timeout behavior and that a timed-out call returns "with my_turn false, nothing lost." It does not cover auth or rate limits, but it goes well beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loads the action list, but it is a single dense paragraph with heavy parenthetical nesting, making it hard to scan. Some clauses merely repeat schema descriptions, such as notes='new' / 'all', and the dangling "`timeout_seconds`" at the end adds no explanatory value.

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 complex five-action turn-management tool with eight parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what each action does, how finish and wait block, what happens on timeout, and what the return includes (turn, my_turn, gate, todo/decisions, digest, notes). Remaining gaps are minor domain-specific details rather than missing call-critical information.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics for the required `action` parameter by explaining what each action does and returns. It also contextualizes `since`, `detail`, `notes`, `timeout_seconds`, and `actions` beyond the terse schema descriptions, though some details like the exact shape of actions rows remain vague.

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 frames the tool as "The clock" and enumerates the actions it performs: status, briefing, finish, end, and wait. It names the resource (the turn) and the operations, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling tools such as question, answer, or session.

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 clear context for each action, for example status returns "whose turn, the gate, what blocks ending it" and briefing gives "my turn in one read." It also specifies contextual parameter uses like since='turn' after a context reset and detail='digest' for the event digest alone. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming alternative sibling tools.

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