Broadcast message

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 does add one useful behavior detail ('Each recipient's pane updates instantly'), which gives some real-time/push semantics. However, it does not disclose whether the sender receives delivery confirmation, whether delivery is guaranteed, error behavior, or potential side effects like message flooding—only a single minor behavioral trait for a broadcasting tool.

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 concise sentences with the key behavioral trait front-loaded. No wasted words, but the second sentence ('Each recipient's pane updates instantly') could arguably be folded into a single sentence without loss.

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?

A 2-parameter broadcast tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage needs more. The description doesn't explain the 'from' semantics, delivery guarantees, whether the sender can be an unregistered ID, or distinguish the broadcast from tmux_send. For a messaging tool involving agents, the description is thin on operational context.

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 for both parameters. It does not explain what 'from' should contain (e.g., is it the sender's name, a registered agent ID?) or the format/content constraints of 'body' beyond the schema's minLength. Both parameters' meaning is left to the agent to infer from parameter names alone.

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 verb (send) and resource (message to every registered agent), and distinguishes it from a point-to-point send by noting 'except the sender'. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative (tmux_send), but the 'every registered agent' scope clearly separates it from a targeted send.

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 broadcast use ('every registered agent') versus targeted messaging, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over tmux_send, nor does it mention any prerequisites like needing to be registered or how agent registration works. Context is clear but exclusions/alternatives are not named.

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