Coordinate multi-agent workflows by atomically signaling at a version-verified synchronization point.
Atomically arrive at a barrier using its observed version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| barrier_id | Yes | ||
| binding_token | No | Opaque token returned by this agent's join_session or plan_session. Required for reliable identity when logical agents share an MCP connection. | |
| expected_version | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the primary source of behavioral information. It discloses that the operation is atomic and version-checked, but it does not explain what happens on version mismatch, whether arrival blocks, or what side effects occur.
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 entire description is a single dense sentence with no filler. 'Atomically' is front-loaded and every remaining word adds meaning.
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 concurrency-sensitive tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is too incomplete. It lacks failure semantics, return behavior, relationship to create_barrier, and guidance on how to obtain the expected version.
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?
With only 33% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that expected_version is an observed version and connecting the tool to a barrier resource. However, binding_token is not mentioned at all, leaving its purpose under-specified.
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 specifies the verb ('arrive'), the resource ('barrier'), and a key condition ('using its observed version'). It is distinct from sibling create_barrier, though the term 'arrive' is domain jargon that may not be immediately obvious.
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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_barrier or wait_for_signal. It implies the need to have observed a version, but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.