broadcast_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains that the message goes to all other active sessions and returns a result indicating success and delivery targets. It also describes the priority parameter. However, it does not cover potential edge cases like failure behavior or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 well-organized with clear sections for intro, usage, arguments, return value, and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description provides sufficient context: when to use it, what it does, parameter details, and a concrete usage example. The return format is described and the presence of an output schema further completes the picture.

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?

The input schema provides only type/title information with 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains the meaning of each parameter: content, source_task_id, and priority, including the allowed priority values ('normal', 'high', 'urgent'). The example also demonstrates the parameter values in context.

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 'Broadcast a message to all other active Claude Code sessions' — a specific verb ('broadcast'), resource ('message'), and scope ('all other active sessions'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'send_message', which likely targets a specific session.

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 explicitly says 'Use this to notify all other sessions about important events, like when a PR is merged to main', providing a clear usage context. It does not directly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the broadcast vs. direct messaging distinction is implied by the wording.

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