tandem_channel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that polling remains available, that watchdog_token must reflect an actual independent hook wake, that recover never changes task outcomes or reruns work, and that token-file contents are secret. It does not fully spell out state-changing effects like whether an ack consumes the event, leaving a small transparency gap.

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 front-loaded with an overview, then delivers one compact clause per action with caveats attached to the relevant operation. Every sentence earns its place, including the final security note about token-file contents. There is no filler.

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?

The description covers most of the tool's complex behavior and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. But the 'status' action in the enum is never explained, and 'limit' is undocumented. For a 7-parameter, 5-action tool with no annotations, these are meaningful gaps.

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 must compensate. It successfully connects probe_token, watchdog_token, event_id, task_id, include_previous, and the action values to their behaviors. However, the 'limit' parameter is never mentioned, and the allowed ack combinations are implied rather than fully explicit.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Manage optional Claude Code Channels push delivery' and contrasts it with 'ordinary polling.' It is clear and not tautological, but it does not name or distinguish any sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives concrete per-action conditions: probe is for a receipt challenge, ack confirms via probe_token/watchdog_token/event_id, pending lists unacknowledged events, and recover replays event_id or task_id. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use this tool, but the action-level context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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