zen_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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains the parallel execution and per-tab injection, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., failure handling, rate limits, or whether it modifies tab state). The description does not contradict any annotations because none exist, but it falls short of full transparency.

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 relatively concise with a clear introductory sentence and a structured args section. Each sentence serves a purpose, and the key information is front-loaded. The list format adds some repetition but is efficient. Minor loss for not being fully streamlined.

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 complexity (3 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description covers the basic function and parameters. However, it lacks details on the return format (only says 'returns per-tab results keyed by tab id' without specifying the structure of each result) and error handling. Without an output schema, the description should provide more completeness.

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%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds meaningful context: it explains that 'tab_ids' are targets, 'command' is a dict (e.g., {'action': 'pageInfo'}) and 'timeout' is a per-tab timeout in seconds. While it gives useful examples, it does not exhaustively describe all valid command structures or constraints.

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 the tool's function: 'Fire the same command at every listed tab in parallel.' It specifies the action (fire command), the resource (tabs), and the parallel execution. It also explains that each tab gets the command with its own tabId injected and returns per-tab results keyed by tabId. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like zen_parallel or zen_batch, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is a sibling tool 'zen_parallel' that might also run commands in parallel, but no mention of when broadcast is preferred. No usage context, exclusions, or when-not-to-use information is given.

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