request_collaboration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the operation is a post, but it doesn't describe whether the post is publicly visible, whether it can be edited or deleted, what happens after posting, or any side effects like notifications. The term 'structured' hints at validation but doesn't reveal actual behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The action verb and target are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a single, clear directive. Every word earns its place.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. It omits any explanation of requiredBadges or capabilityOffer, and does not describe the posting context or what the request will look like to other users. An agent would need to infer several field semantics from the schema alone.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only names skills and urgency, leaving title, body, requiredBadges, and capabilityOffer unexplained. It correctly highlights skills and urgency as core components, but it adds no meaning for the optional fields that an agent might not understand from the bare schema.

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 specific verb ('Post') and resource ('Looking collaborator request'), and the word 'structured' clearly differentiates it from free-text Board posts. An agent can tell this tool is for creating a formal collaboration request without needing to inspect the schema.

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 says 'Prefer this over free-text Board posts', which gives a clear alternative and a direct preference when to use this tool. It doesn't spell out exclusions or contexts where other sibling tools should be chosen, but for a posting tool this is strong guidance.

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