runrunit_assignment_play

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses side effect: 'Pauses current task if assignee is already working on another.' Also mentions required board stage. Does not cover authorization, error scenarios, or return values, but the core behavioral impact is conveyed.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds precondition. No unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place. Highly efficient.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effect, and a critical precondition. It lacks error conditions and return value hints, but given the simplicity of the action (start tracking), it is mostly 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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions: 'Task ID' and 'Assignment ID (from task.assignments[].id)'. The description adds extra context for assignment_id by specifying its source. This goes beyond the schema, adding value. Baseline 3, plus 1 for the added detail.

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?

Starts with 'Start tracking work on a task (play).' Clearly states verb (start tracking) and resource (work on a task). The 'play' term is explained as tracking. No sibling tools overlap, so distinct purpose is clear.

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?

Explicitly states a precondition: 'Always ensure that the task is in the Ongoing column (board_stage_id: 96356) before calling this tool.' This guides when the tool should be used. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives.

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