pool_signal

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the signal is destructive, idempotent, or requires authentication. The description only defines input parameters without addressing side effects or coordination pool behavior.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose. It uses a clear Args block format, making it easy to scan. However, it could be slightly more succinct without the docstring repetition.

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 tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, the description explains the inputs adequately but does not discuss output or behavioral context. Since output schema exists, the description is not required to explain return values, but it could be more complete regarding coordination effects.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning by specifying allowed values for 'action' (completed, blocked, claimed, signaling) and describing each parameter briefly. This provides more context than the bare schema, though it could be more detailed.

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 the tool's function: 'Signal an action to the multi-instance coordination pool.' It specifies the action, topic, summary, and optional affects, making the purpose unambiguous. No sibling tool performs signaling, so it is well-distinguished.

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 lists parameters but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like pool_status or hive_status. It lacks explicit context for choosing this tool over others.

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