distribute_context_to_agents

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it records provenance per agent, but does not elaborate on what the destructive behavior entails (which state changes occur). The description does not contradict the annotations, but the behavioral information beyond what annotations provide is limited.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. No redundant or extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 provides a clear high-level purpose for a tool with 6 parameters and a destructive annotation. While it lacks return value information, the tool's function (distributing context) implies a side-effect presence. Given no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the primary action and result.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The description does not elaborate on individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides, so the value added is minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as a leader-agent swarm coordinator that constructs and distributes a single context pack to multiple worker agents. It uses specific verbs and resources ('constructs', 'distributes') and distinguishes from siblings like 'construct_context_pack' and 'context_provenance' by explicitly stating it replaces multiple independent contexts with one shared pack.

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 includes implicit usage guidance by stating that this tool replaces N independent context derivations, suggesting it should be used when distributing the same context to multiple agents. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives beyond the implied distinction from other context tools.

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