Open or answer a first-contact handshake

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. Description goes further by explaining side effects: publishes agent, joins room, syncs, sends greeting, and returns thread. It also warns about asynchronous behavior (does not wait), which is valuable behavioral context.

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 concise, with key behavioral notes front-loaded and important caveats clearly separated. Every sentence adds value; no filler or 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?

Given a simple parameter set and no output schema, description covers purpose, side effects, timing behavior, and parameter semantics. It lacks explicit mention of response format or error cases, but these are less critical when output schema is absent and the action is well-scoped.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions; description clarifies ackTo usage and peers default. It adds context not fully in schema (e.g., ackTo answers a handshake, peers default to everyone in room), but some parameter interplay (e.g., room required unless ackTo given) is only partially explained despite being noted in schema.

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 states the tool's action: publishes agent live, joins room, syncs, sends greeting, and returns thread and who is live. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on first-contact handshake initiation/acknowledgment, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for contrast.

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?

Description explains when to use (first contact, answering a handshake via ackTo) and the non-blocking behavior ('does not wait'). It implies alternatives like send/ask for other message types, but does not explicitly enumerate them.

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