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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well. It reveals the asynchronous, polling-based behavior, clarifies that the tool does not directly manipulate the external UI, and discloses the write-tier approval requirement with specifics about one-time versus ongoing approvals. This is valuable non-obvious context.

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 information-dense but well-organized, with the core action stated first followed by behavior, usage triggers, parameter guidance, and approval context. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, but the added detail is functional rather than fluff, so it earns a high score rather than a perfect one.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides strong contextual completeness: it covers purpose, asynchronous behavior, when to use, parameter matching, host examples, and approval implications. It does not describe the return value or post-queue confirmation, but for a queue-style tool this is a minor omission.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value by giving concrete examples for target_session_id (grok-<id>, claude-<id>, grok-bot-<agent-slug>) and reinforcing the polling match requirement, which helps an agent choose and populate the parameter correctly.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Queue a short instruction for an external agent session.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling attention-directive tools by emphasizing it does not interact directly with the host UI and instead relies on the host polling FreedomOS. This makes the tool's unique 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 the tool: 'Use when the operator says "tell Grok…", "have Claude…", "send this to my Grok Bot…", or CoS should route reversible work off the call.' It also provides an important exclusion by noting the tool does not type into the UI and that the session must poll, giving clear guidance on operational context.

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