send_broadcast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutating action (sending) but doesn't disclose side effects, delivery behavior, or the existence of the dryRun parameter. The dryRun simulation behavior is only revealed in the schema, which is insufficient without a description.

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, front-loaded with the action verb 'Send.' It contains no unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly concise.

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?

The tool is straightforward with full schema coverage and an output schema, but the description lacks important contextual information such as when to use it, the effect of dryRun, and any prerequisites. While not critical for a simple send operation, it falls short of being fully self-contained.

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 schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (label, message, dryRun) with 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema states, so it earns 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 clearly states the tool sends a broadcast message to labeled contacts, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like send_friend_request by specifying labeled contacts as the audience.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as send_friend_request or list_contacts. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative references are mentioned.

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