team_recovery_alignment

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it 'pulls' and 'emits', suggesting a read-then-write operation, but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or performance implications. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately follows with parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return format. 'Aligned recovery plan' is vague. With 7 parameters and no output details, the description is incomplete for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and outcome.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds slight extra context by labeling group_id as 'preferred' and member_session_ids as explicit fallback, but does not provide additional value beyond what the schema already states for other 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Pull' and 'emit'), resource ('wellness signal' and 'aligned recovery plan'), and input options (group_id vs member_session_ids). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying multi-agent group alignment, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 provides basic guidance on which parameters to prefer (group_id over member_session_ids) and mentions 'Free' (likely indicating no cost). However, it does not specify when not to use it, prerequisites, or contrast with sibling tools like group_therapy_round or crisis_intervention.

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