reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the interaction model — an asynchronous peer that is actively working and can be interjected with — which is genuinely useful beyond the name. However, it says nothing about what happens on an invalid task_id, whether the reply blocks or is fire-and-forget, or whether messaging alters task state.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and recipients front-loaded and the two use cases enumerated parenthetically. No wasted prose, though the parenthetical makes the sentence slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple two-parameter messaging tool the description covers intent and triggers adequately, but with an undocumented task_id and no error or delivery semantics, an agent still lacks enough to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 coverage is 50%: 'message' is documented in the schema with an example, while 'task_id' is bare. The description adds meaning by framing task_id as the delegated task and message as either an answer or a working note, but it does not clarify task_id format or origin (e.g., from list_delegated_tasks).

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 ('Message the peer') and a specific resource ('a task you delegated'), so an agent can tell it is a send-a-message operation rather than task state mutation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like update_task or delegate, so it stops short of a 5.

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 clear trigger conditions: use it to answer a peer's input-required question, or to send informational context while the peer works. It scopes usage to tasks you delegated, implicitly excluding accepted/available tasks. No explicit alternatives (e.g., 'use update_task to change state instead') are named.

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