send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses the key trait: offline queuing for named peers versus fire-and-forget semantics for @role/@all. It omits return value, failure behavior, and any auth/rate-limit context, but the delivery model is the behavior an agent most needs.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence packs the core action and both addressing modes without preamble. The nested parentheticals make it dense but every clause carries load.

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 send tool with full schema coverage, the description covers addressing modes, delivery semantics, and payload constraints. The only unaddressed area is what the call returns or how failures surface, which matters because no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains that @<role> and @all resolve to ONLINE peers only and are not queued. That semantic distinction is not derivable from the schema text alone.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Send a plain-text message to a hoptell peer') and immediately carves out the three addressing modes. It is unmistakably distinct from the read-side siblings list_peers, read_inbox and wait_for_message.

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?

It states the delivery conditions that govern addressing choice: named peers queue for offline recipients, while @<role> and @all reach only online peers and are not queued. There is no explicit 'use X instead' routing to siblings, but the when-to-expect-delivery guidance is clear and actionable.

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