comm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool dispatches methods and references sync, mark-read, and DM access control, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error handling. Adequate but not detailed.

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 moderately concise, but the inline listing of methods (e.g., 'listConversations(cursor?, limit?, includeArchived?) — browse conversations') makes it a bit lengthy. The front-loading of the domain statement helps, but some sentences could be trimmed.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple methods) and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete regarding return values and error handling. However, the guidance to use 'list' for full method schemas partially compensates. Adequate for a meta-tool.

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% for the two top-level parameters (method and params) with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining method values ('camelCase verb or "list"') and listing common methods with their parameter fields, which enriches the schema meaning.

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 'Communication: conversations, messages, history, mark-read, sync, DM access control,' which broadly covers the tool's domain but lacks a specific verb+resource. It lists methods like listConversations and send, and distinguishes comm_send for replies, so purpose is moderately clear.

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 guides to 'Prefer the comm_send tool for replies,' clearly directing when to use a sibling. It also provides the invocation pattern ('Call with {"method":<verb>,"params":{...}}') and mentions using 'list' to enumerate methods, offering good usage context.

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