send_broadcast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully reveals the mechanism (raw `am broadcast -a`), which implies the invocation reaches registered broadcast receivers, but it says nothing about required permissions, potential side effects on the device, or whether the broadcast is ordered/sticky. The mechanism disclosure is real value, but the risk profile is undisclosed.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the optional arguments following. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 needn't be explained. But with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the `serial` parameter and the tool's side-effect/permission profile unaddressed — acceptable for a simple adb wrapper, but incomplete for correct 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%, so the description must compensate. It documents three of four parameters — `action`, `component` as the target component, and `extras` as string key/value pairs — adding format meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the `serial` parameter (device targeting) is entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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+resource ('Send a broadcast intent') and anchors it to the underlying adb command `am broadcast -a <action>`, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like start_service or launch_activity. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternatives are named despite a large sibling set (start_service, launch_activity, run_shell) that could plausibly overlap. The agent must infer the use case from the tool name alone.

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