sentinel_presence

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the board is advisory and never blocks an action, that claim reports conflicts, and that release drops your claims. But the trailing lists ('Signals: signal', 'Directives: direct, ack, resolve', 'Pheromones: alarm, attract') are name-only labels that do not explain the mechanics, side effects, or permissions of those operations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, followed by compact bullet-style usage examples, which is efficient for a 12-action tool. The final run-on grouping of signals/directives/queues/pheromones is terse and slightly cryptic, but the overall size is reasonable and most sentences earn their place.

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?

For a high-complexity tool (12 actions, 15 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers claim/release/checkpoint/read well but leaves directives, signal, allocate, alarm, and attract essentially undocumented beyond their action names. An agent can invoke the common paths, but the less-common operations lack enough context to call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters, including ttlMinutes defaults, mode default, and note inheritance. The inline example payloads for claim/release/checkpoint/read are illustrative but add little beyond what the schema already states; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('shared presence board for every agent working in this repository') and immediately qualifies its nature ('advisory — it never blocks an action'), so an agent knows it is a coordination/awareness tool rather than an enforcement one. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sentinel_* siblings, so the agent must infer its distinct role.

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 when-to-use guidance tied to workflow moments: claim before writing, release when done, checkpoint before an irreversible step, read for the active board. 'checkpoint is the one call to make before an irreversible step' is an explicit trigger condition. It stops short of stating when NOT to use the tool or how to choose among siblings.

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