share_context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the purpose but omits details like whether sharing overrides existing keys, persistence, or visibility scope. Basic transparency is present but insufficient for deep understanding.

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 concise: a single-sentence purpose followed by a clear bulleted args list. Every sentence adds value without 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 simplicity (4 string params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter meanings. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but these are not critical for this low-complexity tool.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well by listing each parameter with a brief explanation and examples for 'key' (e.g., 'api_results', 'analysis', 'decision') and notes that 'value' can be text or JSON. This adds significant meaning beyond the plain schema titles.

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 'Share a piece of context/data with a room' and elaborates that it's a structured way to share results, findings, or data points. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'send_message' and room management tools.

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 implies usage for sharing structured context but does not explicitly contrast with 'send_message' or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but exclusions and alternatives are not mentioned.

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