team_time_ask_agent

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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations: a 60-second server deadline, a non-blocking posture toward offline/idle chats, and the explicit caveat that a reply is data rather than authorization. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description never explains what state it can destroy or why a mere question is flagged destructive — a meaningful 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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the deadline immediately after. Dense but not wasteful; the 'use their checkpoint' clause is terse to the point of being cryptic, slightly hurting the structure.

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?

It conveys the deadline and the coordination semantics, which are the hardest things to infer, and there is no output schema to explain. But with destructiveHint=true, no parameter documentation, and unexplained references to 'checkpoint' and 'preserve claims', an agent still lacks enough to call this confidently.

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 0% across four required parameters (taskId, senderRunId, recipientRunId, body), and the description never explains any of them, including the 2000-char body limit or which run ID is which side of the exchange. The phrase 'task-linked chat' obliquely hints at taskId and recipient, but that is not adequate compensation.

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 names a specific verb and target — asking a task-linked active chat a coordination question — which is distinct from asynchronous siblings like leave_agent_message or reply_agent_message. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those tools, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It gives a clear when-not rule (skip offline/idle chats and use their checkpoint instead) and a constraint on how to treat the answer (data, not permission to expand work). It does not name the alternative tool an agent should fall back to, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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