ck_copilot

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by describing real-time event streaming and the collaborative aspect, which aligns with the annotations. It does not contradict them.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and efficiently covers the key modes. No extraneous words.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and that an output schema exists, the description provides sufficient high-level context. It could be more explicit about parameter usage per mode, but the schema covers details.

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% and parameters are already described. The description adds value by summarizing the modes but does not elaborate on other parameters like actor, event_type, limit, payload, session_id, task_id beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it is a real-time collaborative channel for human actions streaming to the agent, explaining that agents can see human viewing, editing, approving. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying modes (subscribe, publish, presence, history) and the collaborative nature.

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 four modes and what each does (receive events, emit event, who is active, recent events), providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with alternatives.

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