gc_peer_conversation

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it mostly delivers: it discloses persistence, non-job-oriented semantics, absence of dispatch audit rows, local transcript preservation, and remote A2A context/threading reuse. Missing: no mention of rate limits, auth requirements, or failure/error behavior, but the core operational model is well disclosed.

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?

Well-organized with clear headers (Actions, Important semantics, Typical flow). The two-line semantic bullets are dense and informative. The typical flow section is concrete and actionable. No redundancy with schema descriptions.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with a nested config object and no output schema, the description is thorough: it covers all actions, parameter requirements, semantics, and gives an end-to-end example. The one notable gap is not describing the structure/content of responses (e.g., what a 'turn' reply contains), which matters since there's no output schema to rely on.

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 the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that peer_agent must be a registered A2A peer name, that session_id applies to turn/get/delete, and that message is required for turn. It also explains config's purpose (stored at creation) and the role of agent as an alias for peer_agent.

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 opening sentence nails it: 'Persistent chat-style sessions with external A2A peers such as Pluto.' It names the resource (peer conversation sessions), the domain (chat/dialogue), and the key differentiator (persistence, A2A peers). The action list further disambiguates from siblings.

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?

Exceptionally explicit: states when to use (dialogue, clarification, synthesis, coordination), when NOT to use ('Do NOT use gc_dispatch for conversational turns'), and contrasts with gc_dispatch's job-assignment role. The typical flow section reinforces correct usage with a concrete sequence.

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