ateam_conversation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses key behaviors: auto-routing to the right skill, multi-turn context maintenance via actor_id, and the wait/timeout mechanism. However, it does not cover potential side effects, auth requirements, or error scenarios.

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 three sentences, efficiently front-loading the core purpose, then key feature (auto-route), and finally multi-turn detail. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 parameter count and schema coverage, the description adequately explains usage patterns. It lacks details on return value format, which might be important for an agent, but no output schema exists to compensate. Still, it covers essential behavioral aspects.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining actor_id for conversation continuation, wait default, and timeout defaults/max detail, which are not fully evident from the schema descriptions alone.

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 sends a message to a deployed solution and gets a result. It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting auto-routing without skill_id, making it unique among tools like ateam_test_skill.

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 clear context on when to use: for sending messages to deployed solutions and multi-turn conversations. It explains how to continue a conversation via actor_id but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, though the sibling list implies differentiation.

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