debug_send_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'possibly wait for the response' but doesn't disclose what happens if waitForResponse is false (does it return immediately? what does the response look like?), or whether it mutates state. It also doesn't describe the execution state inspection behavior referenced in the intro.

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 reasonably concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. The introductory phrase about Arch's capabilities adds context but is somewhat generic and could be trimmed. Still, it's efficient overall.

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 sends messages and optionally waits, it would benefit from explaining the response structure or return behavior, and how it fits in the debug workflow (e.g., after loading an agent). No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. It's adequate for a simple send action but lacks needed context for effective use.

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 100% (all four parameters—text, timeout, sessionId, waitForResponse—have descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions 'send message' and 'wait for response' but doesn't clarify how timeout relates to waitForResponse or what sessionId defaults to. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers the parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Send a message to the loaded agent') and the resource (the loaded agent). It also adds context about Arch's general purpose (connecting to live sessions, tracing failures, inspecting state). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like debug_session_history or debug_get_current_state—though the purpose is clear enough on its own.

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 usage for debugging (sending messages to agents) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., need to load an agent first via debug_load_agent), and no mention of when to use waitForResponse or timeout. It just states a generic action.

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