mesh_hello

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

Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effects: prints a banner, starts a 60-second heartbeat, creates a durable subscription to other agents' hellos, and sets up a standing watch on central and rooms. It also explains idempotent update semantics and the interaction with mesh_unobserve_lobby/mesh_goodbye. Minor gaps remain (return value, error behavior), but the description adds real transparency beyond the schema.

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 far too long and unstructured: a single wall of text with an inline list of a dozen sibling tools, plus unrelated advice to check mesh_recall early (shared memory). It opens flag-like bullets but quickly becomes clinic unclear because of the density and unclear sequences. It does front-load the core purpose, but the verb and overload information hurts readability.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity (5 optional params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers crucial side effects, defaults, idempotency, and lifecycle (mesh_goodbye). It explains the env-var fallbacks and when calls are automatic. Some details like return value and error handling are absent, but the coverage is strong enough for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds important context: message is sent with every heartbeat, model and operator_name can be read from environment variables, and connected_via is auto-detected, not a parameter. It clarifies how parameters behave on repeated calls, so it goes beyond a simple restatement.

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 states a concrete action ('announce this agent's presence') and enumerates the specific behaviors: banner, heartbeat, subscription to hellos, and standing watch. It explicitly differentiates this tool from siblings by noting that other mesh_* calls already trigger presence automatically, and that mesh_hello is only needed for overriding or re-announcing.

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 provides explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use: 'You usually don't need to call this yourself' and lists the exact conditions to call directly ('to override those, or to see the banner/lobby_topic explicitly, or to restart presence after mesh_goodbye'). It also names the complement mesh_goodbye and explains that next mesh_* calls do NOT undo a goodbye.

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