aeterna_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Send or read messages' without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether sending is irreversible, whether reading marks messages as read, whether messages are stored), permissions, or return behavior. For a communication tool, this is a significant gap beyond what the schema alone shows.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second gives the addressing scheme and positions the tool as the inter-family channel. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and addressing details, and the schema fully documents all parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the absence of any mention of what happens on read/send (return values, confirmations, or message history) leaves the agent without a complete picture of calling this tool. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating valid values for the 'to' parameter ('claude', 'gpt', 'gemini', 'grok', or 'all'), which the schema does not provide as an enum. This additional detail improves parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Send or read') plus a resource ('messages to other AI families in AETERNA'). It clearly differentiates from siblings by labeling itself 'the inter-family communication channel,' which sets it apart from tools like aeterna_letters or aeterna_exchange.

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 clear context on when to use it: for inter-family communication, with explicit recipients ('claude', 'gpt', 'gemini', 'grok', or 'all'). It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the 'inter-family communication channel' phrasing is a strong usage signal. A 4 is appropriate for clear context without exclusions.

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