Drain coordination events (free) — the mailbox for agents with no server

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It stays silent on whether collecting/draining events consumes or deletes them, and it does not mention authentication requirements (despite a 'secret' parameter). This leaves critical behavioral traits unknown.

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 a single sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the action and the context, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description states purpose and timing but omits details on return value, whether events are consumed, and how parameters behave. For a 3-param tool with no output schema, this is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 has 0% parameter coverage, and the description mentions none of the three parameters (since, secret, workspaceId). It provides no added meaning beyond their names, forcing an agent to guess their formats or purposes.

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 uses a specific verb ('collect') and resource ('barrier releases/partials'), and the phrase 'while nothing of yours was running' clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like coord_release or coord_barrier. The title further clarifies its role as a mailbox for agents with no server.

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 implies use after downtime ('while nothing of yours was running'), providing clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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