Broadcast to my subtree

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the recipient selection logic (meta.parent chain), the default root, and the return value (list of recipients). This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it does not mention potential side effects or required permissions.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and includes a clear parenthetical clarification. Every word earns its place with no redundant or vague phrasing.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, recipient selection, default root, and return value, but lacks parameter details for body/from and does not address usage alternatives or limitations. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but leaves notable gaps in a complete understanding.

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 only 33%, and the tool description only clarifies the 'root' parameter (default value), which is already in the schema. 'body' and 'from' are not explained in either the schema or the description. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the semantics of these parameters ambiguous.

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 a specific action ('Send a message to every pane in an org subtree') with a precise resource definition (panes whose meta.parent chain leads back to root). It distinguishes from siblings like send_message and send_to_parent by specifying the broadcast scope.

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 when to use (when broadcasting to a subtree) and gives a default root, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. No comparison with sibling messaging tools is provided, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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