Broadcast to team

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

The description implies a write operation that sends to all active teammates. It lacks details on whether there are restrictions (e.g., permission requirements, rate limits) or what happens if no teammates are active. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes examples. No wasted words.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main purpose and provides useful context for the message. It could briefly mention the urgency parameter's impact or recipient behavior, but overall is fairly complete.

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 50% (only 'message' has a description; 'urgency' does not). The description adds context for the message parameter via examples but does not explain the urgency parameter or its enum values beyond what the schema provides. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 action (send), the resource (message to every active teammate), and provides concrete examples of use cases (breaking changes, interface changes, coordination requests). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session or recall.

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 gives clear context by listing appropriate use cases (breaking changes, interface changes, coordination requests). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though sibling tools are unrelated.

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