broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the message is signed, which hints at authentication, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, delivery guarantees, or return behavior, leaving significant gaps for a mutation-style tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and scope. It contains no filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.

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?

Although the schema documents all parameters, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain return values or side effects. It only provides the basic action and target, leaving out important context like success/failure behavior, signing mechanism, or delivery semantics.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond indicating the message is signed, which does not improve on the schema, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send'), a clear resource ('a signed message'), and an explicit scope ('to all agents'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also names the endpoint ('comms/broadcast.json'), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like send_message or post_agora_message.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for broadcasting to all agents, which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or point to alternatives for direct or targeted messaging, so it stops short of a 5.

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