broadcast

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does almost nothing here. It does not state that this executes commands on multiple hosts (a high-impact operation), what tmux vs direct mode actually changes, required auth, or expected effects. Only the multi-host scope is hinted at.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is structurally clean. However, the brevity is better described as under-specification than tight conciseness for a 4-parameter execution tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a multi-host command execution tool with no annotations, an unaddressed sibling (broadcast_wait) and a required parameter left undefined, the definition is not complete enough for confident invocation.

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 0% across all 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. Naming mode=tmux|direct is genuinely useful since the schema has no enum, and 'comando/snippet' maps loosely to the command/snippet parameters, but the required 'aliases' parameter and whether command/snippet are mutually exclusive are left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (broadcast) and resource (comando/snippet) along with scope ('su più host') and even the mode values, so an agent can tell roughly what it does. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like run_command_all, run_command_many, or broadcast_wait, which all sound like potential matches for the same task.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over run_command_all, run_command_many, or broadcast_wait, nor when to use mode=tmux versus mode=direct. The mode values are named but no selection criteria are given.

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