Resolve an existing Actor communication channel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value with 'Requires: active-client' (a prerequisite) and the registry-fallback behavior. However, the 'Capabilities: create_comm_channel' line is noise that sits oddly on a read operation and could confuse routing.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the body degenerates into template metadata ('cost=medium; idempotency=read-only ... Produces: structured-observation. Safety: read-only') with visible redundancy between idempotency=read-only, Safety=read-only, and the readOnlyHint annotation.

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 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the prerequisites and fallback are adequately covered, and no output schema means return format needn't be spelled out. Still, the promised 'serializable channel/Event metadata' is left vague and no discriminating context against sibling channel tools is provided.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Signature: { id: string, threadContext: number? }' merely restates what the schema already documents and adds no format, constraint, or semantic detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: resolve an Actor comm channel and return channel/Event metadata, with an explicit fallback to the MCP channel registry. The scope is clear enough to separate it from create-comm-channel and fire-comm-channel, though those siblings are never named.

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 gives a 'Phase: observe' label and a failure-handling pointer to tool-schema, but never states when to use this versus create-comm-channel, fire-comm-channel, or comm-channel-monitor. The agent must infer routing from names alone.

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