broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses substantial behavior: stores one row per recipient with status='pending', sender excluded, fires one webhook event with delivery_id/idempotency_key in envelope, optional role narrowing, payload cap reference, success/error semantics including count=0 with a note being still success. This is rich behavioral detail. Minor gap: doesn't mention rate limiting specifics or auth mechanism beyond error codes, but these are listed as errors.

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-structured with clear sections (When to use, Behavior, Returns, Errors) and is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: the alternatives, the behavioral guarantees, the return shape, and the error taxonomy. No waste or redundancy.

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?

This is a complex tool (broadcast fan-out with role filtering, idempotency via webhook envelope, multiple error modes), and no annotations or output schema are provided. The description compensates fully: it documents the return shape including edge case (count=0 with note as success), error codes, behavior guarantees (sender exclusion, one row per recipient, webhook event semantics), and payload limits. This is a complete spec for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100%, so all 4 parameters have schema descriptions. The description adds value beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'role' narrows the recipient set, and that content has the same size cap as send_message (RELAY_MAX_PAYLOAD_BYTES). The agent_token parameter is well-documented in schema with fallback resolution paths. The description doesn't add param-specific detail beyond what schema provides, but schema already covers it thoroughly, making baseline 3-4 appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Fan out a single message to every registered agent (or every agent of a given role).' It uses a specific verb ('fan out'), a clear resource (broadcast), and a scoping condition (all agents or by role). It effectively differentiates from siblings like send_message (1:1) and post_to_channel (topical group coordination).

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 gives explicit when-to-use context ('announcements, fleet-wide pings, role-targeted prompts') and explicitly names alternatives with when-not-to-use conditions: 'For 1:1 use send_message' and 'For topical group coordination prefer post_to_channel' with a rationale (channels persist membership, avoid spamming opted-out agents). This is model guidance.

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