Send a 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 mentions the broadcast feature and does not disclose delivery semantics, idempotency behavior, error conditions, or any side effects. The agent is left uninformed about what happens after the message is sent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action and a key usage hint. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool and full schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic use. However, there is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., recipient must be registered) or what the return value looks like, leaving some gaps for an agent invoking it.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new meaning; its mention of '*' for broadcast is redundant with the schema's 'to' description. It does not enrich any parameter understanding.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Deliver a message to another agent.' It also includes the broadcast usage ('*'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like bridge_inbox (receive) and bridge_ack (acknowledge).

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 clear context on when to use the tool: to send a message to a specific agent or broadcast to all. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is self-evident among the sibling tools. The broadcast instruction adds a concrete usage guideline.

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