announce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the note is broadcast to other sessions and is consumed via `board`, but says nothing about note lifetime/expiry, author attribution, or whether posting overwrites anything. Adequate disclosure of audience, incomplete on persistence semantics.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: purpose and audience first, then trigger conditions. Every clause earns its place and the call-to-action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, audience, read path, and when to invoke. Minor gap on note lifetime/attribution, which would matter for a shared coordination board but is not strictly needed to call the tool 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 coverage is 100% for the single `text` parameter, so the schema already documents format and language expectations. The description adds content guidance (what to include in the note) that complements the parameter, but no syntax or length detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Post a short note for the other DSH sessions') and enumerates the content types (work in progress, files/repo, decisions). It also names the sibling that reads the notes ('board'), so an agent can distinguish announce from board without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: start something long, take ownership of files another session might edit, or finish a task. It also specifies the read counterpart ('Other sessions read it with `board`'), giving both when-to-use and the alternative tool.

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