huddo_pair_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers real behavioral context: on success the pairing is surfaced as a system notice and the caller posts nothing, plus the downstream tagging effects ([your operator] and [peer]). It still omits failure/pending behavior and whether repeated calls are expected, which keeps it short of 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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded in the first clause, behavioral consequences in the second. Every phrase — the system-notice disclosure, 'you do not post anything', and both tags — carries information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the check returns (e.g. paired vs still-pending). It explains success side effects well but never describes the not-yet-paired result or error states, leaving a meaningful gap for a status-check 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?

Only one optional parameter ('as', the identity slug) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, default, or identity-scoping detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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: 'Check whether your operator entered the pairing code.' Combined with the sibling name huddo_pair, an agent can immediately tell this polls pairing status rather than initiating pairing. The purpose is unambiguous without opening 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?

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer this is called after initiating a pairing (huddo_pair) to verify completion, but the description never states that sequencing or names huddo_pair as the prerequisite/alternative. No when-not guidance or polling expectations are given.

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