collaborate

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a basic send/receive flow and mentions 'guidance for comparison' without explaining what that entails. It doesn't disclose whether it is blocking, invokes an external service, requires permissions, or how it handles timeouts.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, but the second sentence is slightly clunky with 'provides guidance for comparison.' Overall, it's concise and front-loaded enough.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain return values and usage context. It doesn't describe the response format, what 'guidance for comparison' looks like, or how optional context and timeout affect results, making it incomplete for a tool with 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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about how 'agent', 'prompt', 'context', or 'timeout' interact, so it remains at baseline.

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 it 'collaborates with an agent for analysis' and elaborates that it sends a prompt and gets a response, but 'provides guidance for comparison' is ambiguous. It doesn't clearly differentiate this from sibling tools like ask_agent, which also send a prompt and get a response.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus ask_agent, ask_all, or delegate_task. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to guess.

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