execute_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal two behaviors: no review step runs, and resumability requires a confirmed session. But for an executor tool it omits critical context such as side effects, permissions, whether commands are destructive, timeout behavior, and what 'confirmed session' means. The disclosure is far short of what a safe invocation requires.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key qualifier ('without review') and the resumability condition come early. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized for an eight-parameter tool, which is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.

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?

With eight parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is too thin. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still omits parameter meaning, selection criteria, and behavioral constraints. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external context.

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% (only project_root carries a description), and the description supplies nothing about the eight parameters: job_id, task, cwd, model, effort, acceptance, timeout_sec, or project_root. Required vs optional, the effort enum, and the trusted-root constraint of project_root are left entirely to the schema, with no compensating explanation. With high parameter count and zero coverage, this is a severe 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 verb and resource ('Run one CC task') and adds a scoping qualifier ('without review'), so the general action is clear. However, 'CC task' is unexplained jargon, and the description does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like run_job, run_jobs, or review_task beyond the vague 'without review' contrast. An agent cannot confidently tell which of the run/review tools to pick from this text alone.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'Without review' faintly implies an alternative to review_task and 'only a confirmed session is resumable' hints at a resumption precondition, but neither names a sibling nor states a selection rule. The agent must infer routing from tool names.

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