cross_agent_pubsub_message_router

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers valuable behavioral details: guaranteed delivery semantics, retry via dead-letter queue, and correlation trace IDs. It also discloses the cost (0.030 USDC on Base L2), which is essential for decision-making. Missing are failure modes and whether the operation is a send, subscribe, or both, but the provided features are above average.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key guarantees, with the cost appended as a separate note. Every word earns its place with no verbosity.

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 message broker, the description fails to disclose what the tool returns (e.g., message ID, delivery status) or how topics are specified. There is no output schema, so the description should fill this gap. Additionally, the payload structure is left unspecified, making correct invocation uncertain. The cost and delivery guarantees are useful, but they do not complete the operational picture.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, giving baseline credit. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema; for example, it does not explain how to structure the payload to specify a topic or message. Since the schema descriptions are generic, the agent still lacks concrete guidance on what to put in 'payload', but the baseline applies.

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 identifies the tool as a topic-based pub/sub message broker for cross-agent communication, with specific features like at-least-once delivery, dead-letter retries, and trace IDs. This verb+resource pair is distinct from all sibling tools, which mostly focus on validation, conversion, or computation.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The description does not mention any preconditions, exclusions, or sibling tools that might be confused with it, leaving the agent to infer use cases from the name and description.

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