Ask recruit(s) in the room

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that recipients receive the shared channel digest plus their own history and that multiple recruits are messaged in parallel. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as whether the message is persistent, publicly visible, reversible, or rate-limited.

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 a single efficient, front-loaded sentence that states the core action and adds one behavioral note about what recipients receive. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 messaging tool with four parameters, a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic calling semantics and recipient impact. It is missing usage context, side effects, and outcome expectations, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description minimally reinforces the distinction between 'name' and 'names' by stating 'one recruit' or 'several in parallel', but adds little beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions.

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 action ('Send a message') and the resource ('one recruit' or 'several in parallel'), which distinguishes singular and plural use. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like 'discuss' or 'recruit', so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'discuss' or 'recruit'. It implies direct messaging to recruits but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool would be more appropriate.

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