Send To Companion

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

The description discloses the blocking behavior ('wait for completion') and scopes the task as 'short,' providing some behavioral context. However, with no annotations, it does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, prerequisites (e.g., an already-running companion), or what happens on failure. This leaves a notable transparency gap.

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 exactly two sentences: the first states the core purpose and behavior, the second provides the key usage alternative. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or tangential information. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the high-level usage and when to prefer an alternative. It doesn't explicitly describe the return value after 'wait for completion' (whether it returns the final result or just status), but the sibling tools like companion_result and companion_status partially fill that context. The description is sufficient for selecting the tool, though not exhaustive.

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% (16/16 parameters documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, but it does reinforce the 'short task' intent that aligns with the prompt parameter. This is adequate given the schema already carries full parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Send a short task or follow-up to the persistent Claude Code companion and wait for completion.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating, 'For long coding work, prefer companion_start plus polling.' This unequivocally identifies the tool's scope and differentiates it.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('short task or follow-up') and when not to ('long coding work'), naming the alternative (companion_start plus polling). This gives clear, actionable guidance on tool selection with a direct contrast against a sibling.

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