Team Messaging

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. While it describes the three actions, it lacks critical behavioral information: whether messages are persistent, if there are rate limits, authentication requirements, whether 'broadcast' reaches offline agents, what 'active agents' means, or what the response format looks like. For a messaging tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise with three clear sentences, each describing one action with its specific scope. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct, non-redundant information. The structure is front-loaded with the tool's overall purpose followed by action-specific details.

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 complexity of a multi-action messaging tool with 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns for each action, how messages are stored/retrieved, error conditions, or system constraints. For a tool that handles both read and write operations with multiple parameter dependencies, more contextual information is needed.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly with descriptions and enums. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning which parameters apply to which actions (e.g., 'from' for send/broadcast, 'agentId' for inbox). However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context like parameter relationships or usage examples beyond what's in the 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 with specific verbs (send, broadcast, read) and resources (messages between agents). It distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools by focusing on agent messaging functionality, while siblings handle memory management, file locking, task management, etc. The description explicitly lists three distinct actions with their specific scopes.

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 clear context for when to use each action (send for direct messaging, broadcast for all active agents, inbox for reading messages). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among the sibling tools. The guidance is action-specific but lacks broader tool-selection context.

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