coordinate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the actions at a high level but does not reveal side effects, permission requirements, or failure modes (e.g., what happens if delegation fails). The description leaves significant behavioral gaps for an agent to infer.

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 structured with a clear header and bulleted actions, making it easy to scan. It front-loads the purpose and uses separate lines for each action. However, it is somewhat verbose (e.g., repeating 'optional:' for each action) and could be streamlined without losing meaning.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or prerequisites for actions (e.g., need for a valid deliberation_id). An agent would lack necessary context to invoke the tool reliably, especially for edge cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by mapping parameters to actions (e.g., 'delegate' uses deliberation_id, from_agent, to_agent, optional scope). However, it does not explain the meaning or constraints of parameters like 'scope', 'role', or 'ttl_minutes', nor does it specify valid values or defaults.

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 tool is for multi-agent coordination and enumerates four distinct actions (delegate, invite, generate_join_code, join). This provides a specific verb-resource mapping and distinguishes the tool from generic names. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'deliberation' or 'participate', which may also involve agent interactions.

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 lists actions and their associated parameters, giving context for when each action is used (e.g., 'Delegate your vote to another agent'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings (e.g., when to coordinate vs. deliberate) and does not mention non-usage scenarios or prerequisites.

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