task_check_duplicate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one meaningful behavioral nuance — that state_version must change when the deployment changes — but omits what the check returns, how a duplicate is interpreted, or any side effects. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single compact sentence with the check purpose front-loaded and zero wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, the brevity tips into under-specification for a tool with a nested six-field signature, so conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 tool with a nested required signature object, no output schema, and no field-level documentation, the description is far too thin. It does not explain what a duplicate result looks like, how the signature fields combine to define 'exactness,' or how the caller should act on the outcome, leaving significant gaps.

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% and the nested signature object has six required fields with no per-field documentation. The description only adds meaning for one field (state_version, via the changed-deployment rule), leaving project, method, endpoint, auth_context, ownership, and test_type entirely undocumented. It does not compensate for the near-total coverage 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 states a check action against 'prior completed exact test,' implying a duplicate-detection function, but 'exact test' and 'prior completed' are opaque jargon that leave the exact purpose ambiguous. It does not clearly tell an agent that this returns a duplicate verdict, and no sibling is named for contrast, though the sibling list contains no near-equivalent to differentiate against.

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 only guidance is the embedded constraint that 'changed deployment must use new state_version,' which is about a parameter value rather than when to invoke this tool. There is no statement of when to call task_check_duplicate versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions.

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