llm_team_push

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behavioral details: auto-detection of channel type based on URL pattern and the specific formatting per channel (Slack, Discord, Telegram, or generic JSON). However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., idempotency, potential duplicates), authentication requirements, or error handling (e.g., what happens if the endpoint is unreachable).

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 very concise and well-structured. It starts with a one-sentence summary, then uses bullet points to list supported channel types and their formatting. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 the tool's simplicity (single optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is mostly complete. It covers the input parameter and channel behavior. However, it lacks any mention of the output/response structure, error conditions, or confirmation of success. For a push action, users might want to know if the result indicates success or failure.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the single 'period' parameter with valid values: 'today', 'week', 'month', 'all'. However, it does not specify that 'all' might mean the entire history, and it misses describing the default value (week) which is already in the schema. Still, it adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Push the team savings report to the configured notification channel.' It specifies the action (push), the resource (team savings report), and the target (notification channel). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'llm_team_report' (likely only generating the report) and 'llm_savings' (showing savings data).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks information about prerequisites (e.g., the channel must be configured via an environment variable), or when not to use it (e.g., if only a preview is needed). No comparison with sibling tools like 'llm_team_report' is given.

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