agenthop_working

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false; the description adds real context beyond them by explaining the observable effect on the peer (they see progress and wait instead of assuming you dropped). It does not mention what happens on repeat calls or any rate/permission constraints, which the non-idempotent hint hints at.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the rationale, then the timing instruction. Every sentence contributes and nothing is padded.

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 single-optional-param, no-output-schema tool with annotations already covering safety, the description covers what it does, when to call it, and why it helps. The only minor gap is repeat-call behavior (relevant given idempotent=false).

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, and the schema covers it at 100% coverage with its own example. The description adds no format or syntax guidance for 'text' beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 and resource: 'Send a receipt' that tells the other side you got their line and are working on it. It implicitly distinguishes itself from a reply tool by contrasting 'progress rather than a line that needs an answer', but never names a sibling (e.g. agenthop_say) explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear trigger: 'Call it right after a line arrives, before starting the work.' That is actionable context. However, it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so the routing guidance is contextual rather than exclusive.

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