trinity_worker

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

Annotations indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and open world. The description adds behavioral context: 'may execute the agent command and update task state' and specifies return values ('no_task or the compact processed task'), which goes beyond the basic hints.

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 two sentences, each serving a purpose: the first states the core function, the second adds usage guidance and outcome. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simple parameter set (2 params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema), the description covers all important aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns (no_task or processed task). No gaps are evident.

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 100%, so the description adds no new information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The description restates that 'agent' is the agent id and 'task_id' is optional for specific task, but this does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 uses specific verbs 'run' and 'process' to describe the tool's action on a named agent and queued task. It clearly distinguishes from the sibling trinity_worker_daemon by stating 'use trinity_worker_daemon for a background worker', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this to manually drain the queue or retry a specific queued task' and provides an alternative: 'use trinity_worker_daemon for a background worker'. This gives clear guidance on context.

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