taskops_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden and does so impressively. It discloses that mentions reach the recipient on their next call and clear themselves when the recipient writes, and it warns about cross-project repo_path requirements and the need for sub-agents to pass actor. These are critical behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then provides value about mentions and the parallel-agent channel. Every clause earns its place, using emphasis (caps) judiciously to communicate importance.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: core purpose, mentions behavior, cross-project usage, and agent identity pitfalls. It is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool without additional information.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds little beyond the schema, though it does highlight the mentions feature and the cross-project behavior. It does not compensate further but also does not need to.

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 opens with 'Say something on ANY open card', which is a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by emphasizing its role as 'THE channel between agents in parallel' and the ability to mention others, making it clearly different from sibling tools like update or card.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'when your files meet theirs, say so on their card' and mentions that it reaches the recipient on their very next call. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, so it lacks exclusions but still gives strong usage cues.

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