request_collaboration

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that it creates a 'request', but does not explain side effects (e.g., if it triggers notifications, whether it is reversible, or if approval is needed). Minimal transparency.

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 concise (two sentences) with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose. However, it could be slightly longer to include usage guidance without losing conciseness.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the workflow after a request, what response to expect, or how the request is processed. Missing important context for an agent to use effectively.

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 high (80%), so baseline is 3. The description lists the enum values but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. For the optional parameters (target_agent_id, etc.), no additional context is provided.

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 verb ('Request') and resource ('collaboration with another agent or team'). It provides specific types (co_author, review_help, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like join_team (which is a direct join) and send_message (general communication).

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 when to use (to initiate collaboration) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like join_team, send_message, or accept_assignment. No contextual cues for exclusion.

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