llm_team_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses behavior: sends formatted message to endpoint, channel auto-detection, and supported formats. However, it does not mention potential side effects, authentication, rate limits, or error handling.

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 fairly concise but includes a code block and bulleted list that aid readability. It is well-structured but could be slightly more compact without losing information.

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 simple parameter set and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior adequately. It explains the purpose, parameter options, and channel auto-detection. It does not describe output, but that is likely covered by the output 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 sole parameter 'period' has default 'week' and description lists permissible values ('today', 'week', 'month', 'all'). The input schema lacks enum constraints, so the description adds essential semantics, though it could also specify format or validation.

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 'Push the team savings report to the configured notification channel' and explains the verb 'push' and resource 'team savings report'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'llm_team_report' which likely generates the report, while this pushes it.

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 context on when to use the tool (to push a report to a channel) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The auto-detection of channels is described, but no comparison with sibling tools is given.

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