trinity_send

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

Annotated with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that it 'writes to the local message database, does not run a worker, and returns the stored message record,' which clarifies its safe, non-destructive write nature beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and behavioral notes. Front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Covers the core action, differentiation, and behavioral transparency. Since no output schema exists, the description mentions the return value ('stored message record'). It does not address error conditions or prerequisites (like agent existence), but for a simple tool, it is largely complete.

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% so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the parameter descriptions already in the schema. It mentions 'message' and 'target_agent' but no extra format, defaults, or behavior details.

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 action ('Write a durable message') and the target ('to another agent's inbox'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'trinity_dispatch' by specifying that 'trinity_send' is for follow-up context, while 'trinity_dispatch' creates executable work.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use ('follow-up context, review handoffs, or task-linked notes') and when not to use ('use trinity_dispatch to create executable work'), with a clear alternative sibling tool named.

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