Team Management

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: 'join' returns an agent ID, 'leave' releases locks, and 'status' lists roles and capabilities. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., data persistence), or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each earn their place by defining actions and their outcomes, with zero wasted words or redundancy.

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's complexity (multiple mutation actions) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is moderately complete but could better cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs or return formats. It adequately explains the core functionality but has room for improvement in transparency.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds some context by linking parameters to actions (e.g., name/role/capabilities for 'join', agentId for 'leave'), but does not provide significant meaning beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('register', 'unregister', 'list') and resources ('agents in the team'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on team agent management rather than memorization or other team functions like file locking or messaging.

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 provides clear context for when to use each action (e.g., 'join' to register, 'leave' to mark inactive, 'status' to list), but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives among siblings, though the distinct purpose implies separation.

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