broadcast_session_message

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether delivery is fire-and-forget, what happens to inactive/failed sessions, whether recipients are interrupted, or what the caller gets back — all material for a fan-out action tool. Only the bulk-vs-filtered targeting distinction is conveyed, and partially.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the scope qualifier placed after the core action; no wasted text. The trailing '(or all mesh sessions)' hedge slightly muddies rather than sharpens the scope.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema and there is no output schema to explain, but with no annotations and no mutation/return-behavior disclosure, an agent still can't predict what a broadcast actually does at runtime (delivery semantics, partial failures, response). Adequate for selection, thin for invocation.

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 three parameters (content, parent_session_id, sender_session_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, size, or content-type guidance beyond restating that the message goes to all targets — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (broadcast) and resource (session message) plus the target scope: all active child sessions, or optionally all mesh sessions. This distinguishes it in intent from the singular send_session_message in the sibling list, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'broadcast to all active child sessions' vs the parent_session_id narrowing option in the schema, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and does not point to send_session_message for single-target sends. The '(or all mesh sessions)' parenthetical is left unexplained.

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