commune

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only provides a category and a list of action names, with no indication of side effects, permissions, or whether actions are read-only or mutating. This is minimally informative.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. The action list is cryptic and would be more useful if each action were briefly defined.

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 tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, the description is highly inadequate. It does not explain how actions relate to the many input parameters, nor what the output schema will contain. This is far from complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, so the description needed to clarify parameter meanings. It only hints that 'action' can take values like briefing or health, but gives no insight into tags, limit, since, visual, entities, file_path, focus_areas, project_path, interval_seconds, or parent_community_id.

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 the tool handles 'Session start & status operations', giving a general resource and purpose. However, the listed actions (briefing, active_context, triggers, health, covenant, updates) are not explained, and the description doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like govern or reflect.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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