llm_team_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auto-detection of channel types and the period parameter, but does not mention side effects, permissions, or safety aspects. For a mutation/write operation, additional clarity on idempotency or reversibility would improve transparency.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by details on endpoint detection (with bullet-like formatting) and the parameter. Every sentence adds value, and the information is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no required fields, and an output schema), the description covers all key aspects: purpose, period values, and backend behavior (channel detection). It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The input schema provides only a string type with a default for 'period'. The description explicitly lists the four allowed values ('today', 'week', 'month', 'all'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is valuable.

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 action ('push') and the resource ('team savings report'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like llm_team_report (which likely generates the report) by focusing on sending it to a notification channel. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 explains the tool's function and the period parameter but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., llm_team_report). It implies usage for sending reports but lacks 'when not to use' or exclusion criteria, earning a mid-range score.

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