agent_collaboration

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

No annotations exist, so description must carry the burden. It explains actions and outcomes but does not disclose side effects (e.g., record creation), permission requirements, or error handling, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

Description is front-loaded with a clear summary, followed by concise usage examples and enumerations. Every section is useful and avoids redundancy.

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?

Covers actions, parameters, and enumerated values well, but lacks return value description (no output schema) and error handling details, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's output and failure modes.

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%, but the description adds significant value by showing parameter usage via examples, listing collaboration types and outcomes with explanations, and implying conditional requirements (e.g., collaboratorId only for 'start').

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 'Manage collaboration between agents' and provides usage examples for the three actions (start, complete, list), making it distinct from sibling tools like agent_memory or agent_reflection.

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?

Usage examples illustrate typical scenarios, but no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparisons with alternatives is provided. However, the examples effectively convey context.

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