Send 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, and it does so well: it explains delivery timing (instant if the recipient is waiting in slot_inbox wait), fallback delivery (next tool result header), and side effects (a running browser_wait stops at once). It omits rate limits or ordering guarantees, but the key behavioral mechanics are present.

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-loads the core action, then layers scoping, delivery, and timing notes in dense sentences. The parenthetical '(real-time collaboration)' is mild filler and the slot explanation is repeated twice, but overall it is efficient.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics: recipient selection, broadcast behavior, and delivery timing. Return values are the delivered message on the other side, which the description implies; nothing critical is missing 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 coverage is 75%, and the description adds real meaning beyond it: it explains what 'slot' means from the recipient's perspective and what omitting 'to' does (broadcast to the slot). It does not address the optional 'agent' display-name parameter, but the schema's own description covers that.

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 ('Sends a message to other agents') and distinguishes itself from siblings like slot_inbox by describing the send direction. An agent can tell immediately this is not a browser-control tool.

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?

Gives clear usage context ('When you finish a step, notify waiting agents right away') and routing guidance ('Omit to to send to everyone on that slot'). It does not explicitly name when to prefer slot_inbox or slot_pause over this, but the trigger condition is concrete.

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