send_message_to_agent

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 states the agent 'will receive the message and can respond accordingly,' which implies a communication flow but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded and avoid redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second adds context without unnecessary elaboration. It could be slightly more structured but earns its place efficiently.

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 of messaging between agents, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover response formats, error cases, or integration with sibling tools like sessions, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable 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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal semantics: it implies 'agent_name' identifies the recipient and 'message' is the content sent. However, it doesn't explain format constraints, valid agent names, or message handling, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 purpose: 'Send a message to a specific agent' and 'Delivers a message to the specified agent for processing.' It uses specific verbs ('send,' 'delivers') and identifies the resource ('agent'), but it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_agent' or 'get_session_status,' which involve different operations on agents or sessions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that the agent 'can respond accordingly,' but this is vague and doesn't specify context, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for real-time communication, asynchronous messaging, or how it relates to sessions or other agent interactions.

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