Check signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool marks signals as read automatically and advises narrating important ones. However, it does not detail potential side effects of multiple calls, permissions, or rate limits, which would enhance transparency.

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 two succinct sentences. Sentence 1 states the primary action and timing. Sentence 2 lists sources, expected output, and automatic behavior. Every word is necessary, and the structure is front-loaded with the most critical usage guidance.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter meaning. It could be slightly improved by clarifying behavior if called multiple times, but it is largely complete.

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?

The single parameter 'agent_id' has 100% schema coverage, and the description adds meaningful context: it explains the parameter's purpose ('Stable Boardroom agent_id for read attribution') and provides an example value. This exceeds mere schema documentation.

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's purpose: call at session start to catch up on unread signals from specific sources (TestPass, Crews, Memory, every UnClick tool). It uses a specific verb 'call at the start' and defines the resource scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools which are unrelated utilities.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Call at the start of every session', providing clear timing. It implies not to call again mid-session by mentioning auto-mark-as-read to avoid re-narration. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but is clear enough for an agent.

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