beacon_send_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the gas cost and implies a write operation. However, it does not detail what happens on failure, delivery guarantees, or required permissions beyond the relay token. Some behavioral traits are covered, but gaps remain.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a critical note on cost. It front-loads the purpose and efficiently provides essential usage advice. No redundant information.

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 description covers the core purpose, cost, and a prerequisite check. Given that an output schema exists (not shown), return values are likely documented there. Minor omissions like error responses or delivery semantics slightly reduce completeness, but overall adequate for a simple messaging tool.

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 parameters are individually described. The description adds value by explaining the relay_token's source (beacon_register) and expanding on the kind parameter's options. This enriches understanding beyond schema fields.

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 message to another agent via Beacon relay, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions gas cost, which adds context. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like beacon_chat, which might serve a similar purpose.

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 advises checking gas balance first, which is a practical usage guideline. However, it does not specify when to avoid using this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., beacon_chat). This leaves ambiguity about the best tool for communication scenarios.

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