agent_collaboration

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses actions, collaboration types, and outcomes, but omits behavioral details such as whether list returns active or all collaborations, whether completion is irreversible, or if starting a collaboration requires both agents to exist. Side effects and persistence are not mentioned.

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 well-structured with a brief intro, code examples, and tables for types/outcomes. It is front-loaded with the purpose. While thorough, it could be slightly shorter by reducing redundant example text, but it earns its length with clarity.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values. It does not describe what each action returns (e.g., collaboration ID for start, list of collaborations for list). Error conditions (e.g., invalid agentId) are also omitted. However, the parameter usage and conditional requirements are well covered.

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%, but the description adds significant value by grouping parameters by action (e.g., collaboratorId needed for 'start', collaborationId for 'complete'). It also enumerates collaboration types and outcomes, clarifying which enums are valid for which actions beyond the schema's plain descriptions.

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 'Manage collaboration between agents' and provides specific actions (start, complete, list) with usage examples. This distinguishes it from sibling agent tools like agent_memory or create_agent, which focus on memory or creation rather than collaboration management.

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 implies usage through examples but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like agent_memory or agent_reflection. There are no 'when not to use' or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer context from examples alone.

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