Stage Busy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses the display location, that a busy note suppresses the 'stuck' flag for unanswered notes, the default and maximum duration (10 / up to 60 minutes), and that private-term lines are refused by ismail.guards. It does not state whether repeated calls overwrite or accumulate, which keeps it from a 5.

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 purpose and example are front-loaded, and the remaining sentences cover duration, clearing, and the privacy guard — all load-bearing. The writing is dense with stacked parentheticals, which costs some readability but does not add waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers the meaningful behavior: visibility, lifetime, stuck-flag interaction, and the guard rejection. The only real omission is the semantics of the `port` parameter.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it explains three of four parameters with meaning beyond types: `who` must match the identity stage_listen reports, `text` is the line itself with '' as the clear signal, and `minutes` defaults to 10 and caps at 60. `port` is never mentioned, leaving one undocumented parameter.

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 — publishing a one-line 'busy' status that the person in the headset sees — with a worked example ('rendering Dell's drums... about 5 min'). It distinguishes itself from nearby stage tools by tying `who` to the stage_listen identity and by noting where the status appears (beside the 'heard by' receipts).

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 gives an explicit when: 'Set it before anything that can wait on something you do not control (a queue, the GPU, the network)', and a when-not/cleanup: "text='' clears it when you are free". No named alternative tool is offered, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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