ck_copilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It mentions real-time streaming, presence, and history, which are key behaviors. However, it omits details such as error handling, data persistence, authentication requirements, or rate limits, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences plus a succinct list of modes. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the key concept is front-loaded. There is no wasted text, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 2 enums, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the high-level purpose and modes adequately. It does not need to explain return values due to the presence of an output schema. The description could elaborate on how to use presence or history concretely, but overall it is fairly 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the modes (e.g., what 'subscribe' means) and the event types (e.g., 'human.viewing'), which go beyond the raw enum values. This provides higher-level context, justifying above the baseline of 3.

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 defines the tool as a real-time collaborative channel for human-agent interaction, listing specific actions (viewing, editing, approving) and distinct modes (subscribe, publish, presence, history). This verb+resource structure distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are unrelated.

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 explains the core use case and describes each mode's purpose (e.g., 'subscribe (receive events)'), providing clear context for when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives among siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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