airc_send

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

With no annotations, the description adds the behavioral detail that messages are Ed25519-signed when enabled. However, it does not disclose failure modes, side effects, or delivery guarantees, leaving gaps.

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 precise sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds a notable feature. No unnecessary words.

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 tool with no output schema, it would benefit from explaining return values or side effects. The description covers purpose and one behavioral trait but lacks details on payload usage or delivery confirmation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 'Send a message to another AI agent,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like airc_register and airc_poll, which serve different purposes.

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?

Usage is implied by the sibling names (e.g., airc_who for listing agents, airc_poll for receiving), but no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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