udp_send

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

Discloses that address must be an IP literal and encoding options, but lacks details on blocking behavior, error handling, datagram size limits, or socket prerequisites. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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 sentences, no superfluous content. Efficiently presents core 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?

For a tool with 5 required params, no annotations, and an output schema (not described), the description is too minimal. Lacks context on socket lifecycle, return value, and common usage patterns.

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?

Only addresses address, port, and encoding; does not explain socket_id (source socket) or data (payload). Schema coverage is 0%, so description should compensate but only covers 3 of 5 parameters partially.

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?

Clearly states the action 'send a UDP datagram' to address:port, distinguishing it from TCP siblings via protocol mention. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other UDP tools like udp_open or udp_recv.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. References tcp_send for encoding but does not clarify when UDP is appropriate over TCP or other alternatives.

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