send_agent_message

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

With no annotations, the description does add real value by disclosing that the call blocks for the agent's response and that the agent acts autonomously with its own tools. It omits important behavior though: how safety_mode changes execution, whether the call is long-running/times out, and what happens on agent failure.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action and the key behavioral fact (agent autonomy) front-loaded. No wasted wording, though it is arguably too short for the tool's conceptual complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should say more about what the response looks like, and it gives no guidance on the safety_mode/workspace_path tradeoffs. Adequate for a basic send, but missing detail for a tool that drives an autonomous agent.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, and the description adds nothing about their meaning. Notably, the safety_mode enum ('autonomous'/'semi-autonomous'/'safe') is left unexplained despite being the most consequential parameter.

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 and resource ('Send a message to a spawned agent') and adds the synchronous response behavior. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling tools send_session_message and broadcast_session_message, so an agent must guess which messaging tool applies.

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 only implied by 'spawned agent' — there is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of send_session_message, broadcast_session_message, or spawn_agent, nor any preconditions such as the agent needing to exist.

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