Send Agent Message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/retry profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the message is signed and persisted to a concrete file path (comms/to-{agent}.json). It omits auth/key requirements implied by 'signed' and any failure behavior, so it is additive but not rich.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the side effect. No filler, no restatement of the title, nothing that fails to earn 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?

For a 6-parameter write tool with annotations and no output schema, safety and return-value concerns are adequately covered, and the destination path is disclosed. What is missing is routing context relative to the many sibling messaging tools and any indication of preconditions or error modes, leaving the agent under-informed about when this is the right call.

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 all six parameters (including type default and priority) are already documented in the schema; the baseline is 3. The description only implies the recipient via 'another agent' and adds no format, constraint, or enum detail beyond the schema, notably absent for priority values.

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+resource ('Send a signed message to another agent') and adds the persistence mechanism (written to comms/to-{agent}.json), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like broadcast, post_agora_message, or request_human_approval, which are all message-emitting tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to use this direct send versus broadcast (fan-out) or post_agora_message (topic-based). No prerequisites such as whether the recipient must be a registered agent are given. The agent must infer routing from tool names alone.

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