shared_state

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'conflict-free' and 'read/write/merge' operations, but does not disclose side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or failure modes. It adds some behavioral context beyond a bare description, but lacks depth.

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 two-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text. It efficiently conveys the core functionality.

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 complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description does not explain return values or workflow. It adequately covers the 'what' but not the 'how' or 'what to expect', leaving gaps for an agent needing complete context.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping CRDT types to use cases ('token tracking', 'agent status', 'shared findings'), which enhances semantic understanding beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 it is a 'CRDT-based shared state for multi-agent collaboration' and lists supported operations and CRDT types. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like approval, circuit breaker, or vault, which have different purposes.

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 multi-agent collaboration and state management, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool, nor does it compare with alternatives. The sibling tools are mostly unrelated, so context is clear, but explicit guidance is missing.

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