Publish an event to a team's agent message bus and optionally store the same event in shared memory for later recall.
向团队发布事件（agent 间消息）；as_memory=true 时同步存入共享记忆。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| sender | Yes | ||
| team_id | Yes | ||
| as_memory | No | ||
| event_type | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that as_memory=true has a synchronous side effect of writing to shared memory, but it never says whether the event is broadcast to all team members, whether it is persisted/replayable, what permissions sender needs, or what failure modes exist.
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?
One compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. However, brevity here is under-specification rather than economy, given four required undocumented parameters.
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?
A mutation/publish tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs the description to do far more work. It covers one flag out of five parameters and omits delivery semantics and return shape entirely.
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 0% for 5 parameters. The description explains only as_memory (the flag and its effect); team_id, sender, event_type, and text carry no format, constraint, or accepted-value information anywhere. event_type in particular is an unconstrained string with no examples, which leaves the agent guessing.
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 and resource: publish an event to a team, characterized as an inter-agent message. The publish/pull split against sibling event_pull is inferable from the verb, but the sibling is never named, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 only conditional given is that as_memory=true also writes to shared memory, which is a parameter behavior, not guidance on when to use this tool. Nothing says when to prefer event_post over event_pull or memory_add, nor what a team_id must already exist for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.