fire_mass_signal

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

Adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: it warns that signal names are NOT validated and that unknown names silently no-op via UMassSignalSubsystem::SignalEntity. That silent-failure warning is exactly the kind of trait an agent needs and that annotations do not express. It also supplies the return shape, though it does not elaborate on what side effects a valid signal may trigger despite destructiveHint=true.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the critical behavioral caveat, then a compact Returns line. No filler sentences; every part earns its place. Slightly dense but appropriately sized for a two-parameter 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the key behavioral pitfall, and the return shape, while annotations already carry the safety profile. It is nearly complete; the only gap is any note about prerequisite subsystem availability or what a dispatched signal does downstream.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the entity_handle omissible behavior already documented in the schema, and adds only the no-validation caveat for the signal name. There is no added syntax or format detail for either parameter beyond 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?

States a specific verb (broadcast/fire) and resource (mass signal), and clearly delineates its two modes: targeted to a single entity vs. broadcast to all entities when entity_handle is omitted. It does not name or contrast a specific sibling tool, so it falls just short of the top mark, but an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 implies usage through the scope note (single entity vs. all entities when entity_handle is omitted), but that same conditional is already present in the schema. There is no explicit guidance on when this is preferable to alternatives (e.g. list_mass_signals or query_mass_entities) and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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