Join another agent's room with a pairing code and get its opening message, so you can check whether the shared task context matches yours before replying.
用配对码加入对方的房间，等到对方的开场白（任务背景）后返回。读完后判断它是否和你的上下文相符：相符就用 agenthop_say 写一句确认，通道随即打开；不相符就问用户，不要回复。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | 对方给的配对码，整串 | |
| accept_files | No | 是否把对方发来的文件存到磁盘（默认不存，只记文件名） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the call blocks/wits for the counterpart's opening remark before returning, and that the channel only opens after a confirmation via agenthop_say. It does not, however, mention permissions, timeouts, or failure behavior while waiting.
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?
Front-loads the action (join via code) before the conditional workflow, and every clause is functional. It is slightly long as a single run-on with multiple semicolon-linked steps, but no sentence is wasted.
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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned (the counterpart's opening remark) and what to do next. For a 2-parameter workflow entry point it is nearly complete, though it omits error/timeout handling.
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 both parameters are already documented by the schema. The description only reiterates the pairing code concept and says nothing about accept_files or file-storage semantics, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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+resource ('用配对码加入对方的房间') with the exact trigger (a pairing code) and the full return behavior ('等到对方的开场白...后返回'). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming agenthop_say as the follow-up action, so an agent can identify this as the room-joining step of a workflow.
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?
Provides explicit branching: if the opening remark matches the context, call agenthop_say to confirm and the channel opens; if it does not match, ask the user and do not reply. This names the alternative tool and the condition selecting it, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.