Sb3 Add Broadcast

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions '(proxied)' which hints at some indirection, but does not explain what proxying entails (e.g., network call, side effects, state changes). It does not state whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, though 'Add' implies mutation. It does not disclose any side effects or limitations.

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, which is efficient, but it is too sparse to be considered complete. It lacks critical information, so it is not well-structured in terms of content. It gets a neutral score for being short but not adding much value.

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 has only one parameter and no annotations, but the description is extremely thin. It doesn't cover the meaning of 'name', the context in which broadcast messages exist, or any constraints. Given the tool is part of a large Scratch editing environment, more context is needed for correct invocation. The absence of output schema details (though output schema exists) is not a major issue, but the lack of parameter guidance and usage context is a significant gap.

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 0% description coverage and the only parameter 'name' is a bare string with no description. The description does not explain what 'name' should be: a unique identifier, a human-readable label, or the broadcast message text itself. No format constraints or examples are provided, so the agent must guess.

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 states a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('broadcast message'), which is clear. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling operations like sb3_add_sound or sb3_add_costume, beyond the resource type. The description is minimal and lacks detail about what a broadcast message is in the Scratch context.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as having a project open or a sprite selected, nor does it indicate whether it applies to the stage or a sprite. The agent has to infer usage from the context.

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