hub_queue_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the append behavior, the queue file path, delivery semantics, and mesh-synced peer node behavior. The schema's 'from' description adds a write-related warning ('Required like every other write') and permanence of the sender label, further aiding transparency.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence front-loads the action and includes the file path, delivery mechanism, and cross-node sync behavior. No wasted words; every phrase adds 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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description should explain return/error behavior. It covers purpose, delivery, and file location, but doesn't mention what the tool returns on success/failure, or whether the queue is created if missing. That leaves a noticeable 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?

Schema descriptions cover 'from' and 'role' (67% coverage), and the tool description clarifies that the message goes to the role's queue. However, the 'text' parameter has no schema description and the description only implies it via 'message', leaving it to inference.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append a message') and targets a specific resource (a role's queue) with an explicit file path. It clearly differentiates from sibling hub_queue_wait by stating delivery goes to whoever calls that tool, and it explains the cross-agent/cross-node 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 provides clear usage context: it's for cross-agent/cross-node handoffs, and messages are delivered to queue waiters. It implies when to use the tool but doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternative tools beyond the implicit contrast with hub_queue_wait.

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