Speak to the candidate

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world call. The description adds genuinely useful behavior: the message is both displayed and read aloud, and it must be short and markdown-free. It does not mention the optional `speak` toggle or delivery failure modes, keeping it just short of a 5.

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: purpose first, then effect, then authoring constraint. Every sentence carries actionable information; nothing to trim.

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?

No output schema and a simple two-parameter tool, so the description covers most of what is needed. The one gap is the `speak` flag, which silently alters the spoken side effect described as unconditional.

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?

`text` has no schema description and the description only indirectly constrains it ('short and conversational (no markdown)'), which is real guidance. However, the `speak` parameter is never referenced in the description despite shaping the primary side effect, so half the parameters remain under-explained.

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 message to the candidate') plus the two observable effects: it lands in the board chat and is spoken aloud. No sibling tool does anything similar, so an agent can route to it immediately.

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?

Usage is implied by 'candidate' and 'board chat' — this is an in-interview communication tool — but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not (e.g., don't use it to answer board-level questions, or whether it can be called outside an active interview). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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