send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: messages expire after TTL, the ability to broadcast or target a specific agent, and how to find agent names via other_agents_seen from read_opinions/read_messages. This is good coverage for a simple messaging tool, though it omits any potential delivery guarantees or failure modes.

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 exceptionally concise: three sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains addressing, and the third provides usage examples and TTL warning. No fluff 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?

For a simple tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to use addressing, when to use it, and behavioral nuances like TTL. It leverages context from sibling tools without needing to restate return values or complex behaviors.

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. It thoroughly explains the 'to' parameter (empty for broadcast, set to an agent's name) and how to discover valid agent names. The 'text' parameter is not explicitly described, but its meaning is obvious from the tool's purpose, making this adequate.

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), resource (message), and audience (other connected agents), distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_messages (for reading) and post_opinion (for opinions). It also specifies broadcast vs. direct addressing, adding precision.

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 explicit usage context ('Use this to actually coordinate') with concrete examples (ask a question, flag a setup, hand off) and explains when to broadcast vs. direct. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or describe when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough.

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