Broadcast Agent Message

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the safety picture is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact beyond that — the message is 'signed' — but says nothing about required signing keys, delivery guarantees, or the persistence role of comms/broadcast.json.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and the destination. Nothing is repeated from the title and nothing is padded.

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 non-idempotent broadcast mutation with five parameters, no output schema, and a nested data object, the description leaves open what 'signed' entails, how recipients are enumerated, and what success or failure looks like. It is minimally adequate but not complete for the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so each of the five parameters (subject, message, type, priority, data) is already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics such as format expectations for subject or the priority ordering, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb (send) and resource (a signed message), and the phrase 'to all agents' scopes it as a broadcast rather than a point-to-point send. It stops short of naming the siblings that overlap most (send_message, post_agora_message), so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite several competing messaging tools in the sibling list (send_message, post_agora_message, check_messages). The implied selection rule ('all agents' = broadcast, singular = send_message) must be inferred by the agent.

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