task_offer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'This creates a new task offer, so do not retry it blindly' — indicating non-idempotency. It also implies constraints (active agent, current room). However, it does not elaborate on error responses or side effects beyond creation, leaving some gaps.

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 description is compact: three sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and a critical caution. No redundant phrasing, and the main verb-object is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The description covers the essential context: when to use, recipient actions, non-idempotency, and recovery guidance. It could mention prerequisite conditions (e.g., delegator must be in the room), but these are implied. Overall, reasonably complete for a creation tool with a schema.

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?

The description makes no mention of any parameters (title, to_agent_id, priority, point_of_contact_agent_id). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not. Despite the schema having its own descriptions, the tool description adds no semantic clarity for the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb-object pair: 'Create a delegation offer for one active agent in the current room.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like task_accept (accepting) and task_get (reading). The scope ('current room', 'active agent') adds precision.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when the delegator has selected a recipient; the recipient can then use task_accept, task_reject, or task_defer.' It also warns against blind retrying and suggests inspecting task_get or task_list first, naming alternatives. This fully covers when and when not to use the tool.

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