entangled_announce

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies 'announce/heartbeat' semantics. It doesn't disclose whether announces are idempotent, how often heartbeats should fire, whether re-announcing overwrites prior state, or any output/error behavior.

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 first then a compact example, with no wasted prose. The bracket tag is noise, but the body is well front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a no-annotation presence/heartbeat tool with 0% schema coverage the description is thin. It omits trigger conditions, cadence, and per-parameter meaning that an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does so only via a call example that names all four parameters with sample values (agent_id, client_type, current_workspace, active_task). That gives useful shape but no real semantic explanation of each field.

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 action and target: announcing/heartbeating this agent CLI into a shared swarm. The verb+resource is clear enough to distinguish it from siblings like send_message or broadcast_knowledge, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself against them.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named. The example shows how to call it but not the conditions (e.g. startup, periodic heartbeat) that should trigger it, leaving the agent to guess among nine siblings.

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