team_observe_runtime

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: evidence and observation time are lead-relayed and not server-authenticated, stale observations cannot overwrite newer ones, and resumeAvailable has a narrow truth condition. It does not cover permission requirements or error behavior, but the key trust and concurrency semantics are stated.

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 three front-loaded sentences with no filler; purpose comes first, followed by trust/concurrency constraints and the resumeAvailable condition. It is dense with domain jargon but appropriately sized for a complex mutation tool.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers critical trust and staleness behavior but does not fully specify all required parameters or the response side. It is adequate but leaves notable gaps an agent would need to infer.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It adds useful semantics for evidence, observedAt, resumeAvailable, and indirectly expectedRevision via the stale-overwrite rule, but it leaves boardId, memberId, runtimeRef, sourceThreadId, and the state enum values unexplained.

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 specific action and resource: recording an actual collaboration list_agents or wait_agent state for an exact recorded runtime path. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic record/report tools, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like team_record_execution or team_report_member.

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?

Usage is only implied by the mention of list_agents or wait_agent observations; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the source enum and the word 'actual'.

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