Teamwork Receive

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation; the description is consistent and adds real context by disclosing the no-op-in-solo-projects behavior and that it should not be treated as an error. It does not discuss merge conflicts, reservations, or failure modes, which would be the next useful layer.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the success output shape, then the solo-project edge case. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description compensates by documenting both return shapes and the non-error interpretation of the solo case, which is everything an agent needs to invoke and interpret this tool.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-level that needs explanation, and the description correctly spends no words on parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('downloads the changes that other team members have sent, updating the local model'), which is unambiguous and immediately distinguishable from the sibling teamwork_send.

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?

Explains the solo/non-Teamwork case explicitly ('does nothing and returns {isTeamwork: false, message} — that is not an error'), which tells an agent when the call is a no-op and how to interpret the result. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (teamwork_send, get_teamwork_status) for the shared-project case.

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