task_offer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('offer delegation task') and return format ('JSON status offer + task terbaru'), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read or write operation, what permissions are needed, how the offer is delivered, whether it's synchronous or asynchronous, or what happens if the agent isn't available. The description provides basic intent but insufficient operational context.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, the second sentence about return values could be better integrated, and the mixed language (Indonesian/English) affects clarity. While concise, it's somewhat under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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?

Given this is a task delegation tool with no annotations, 4 parameters (nested in 'params'), and an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and doesn't leverage the output schema's existence to focus on other gaps. For a tool that presumably creates task offers between agents, this leaves too many operational questions unanswered.

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 for undocumented parameters. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to explain what 'params' should contain despite the schema showing 4 nested properties (title, to_agent_id, priority, point_of_contact_agent_id). This leaves critical parameter semantics completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 clearly states the action ('Tawarkan satu task delegasi' - Offer a delegation task) and the target ('ke agent tertentu pada room aktif' - to a specific agent in an active room). It distinguishes from siblings like task_accept, task_reject, or task_list by specifying it's for offering delegation tasks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from agent_send or other communication tools beyond mentioning 'task delegasi'.

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?

The description provides minimal guidance - it mentions 'agent tertentu pada room aktif' which implies the agent must be in an active room, but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like agent_send for non-task communication or task_list for viewing tasks. No explicit when/when-not guidance or prerequisite information is provided.

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