Announce what you are doing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that calling this tool updates another agent's coop_status, which is a side effect. However, it does not explain whether it is idempotent, if previous status is overwritten, or any other behavioral traits like auth requirements or error handling. The disclosure is minimal.

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 with no wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the purpose and ends with usage guidance. Very concise.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several sibling tools, the description covers the basic purpose and usage timing. However, it lacks parameter descriptions, return value information, and any mention of error conditions or prerequisites. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, meaning the input schema has no descriptions for its parameters. The description does not compensate: it mentions 'what you are doing' implicitly referring to the `status` field but gives no details about the `detail` parameter or the meaning of enum values. Parameter semantics are entirely missing.

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 announces the current activity to update another agent's coop_status. It uses specific verb-resource ('announce what you are doing') and the title reinforces this. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `coop_status` tool, which likely reads the status, but the distinction is implied.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call when you start and finish a chunk of work.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of cooperation implies it is for status broadcasting.

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