bridge_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the message is readable by another agent via bridge_receive, which implies the message persists and is accessible. However, it does not describe whether the send is synchronous, if there are delivery guarantees, rate limits, or what happens if the channel doesn't exist (e.g., auto-creation or error). Without annotations, these gaps leave the agent somewhat uncertain about side effects.

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 at two sentences. The first sentence states the action and destination, the second provides concrete naming examples. Every sentence is essential and adds clear value. No repetition or filler. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given that the tool has 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key usage context well. It explains the communication pattern (send/receive pair), the naming convention for channels, and how the other agent accesses the message. The only minor gap is the lack of information about error conditions or delivery semantics, but for a simple message-sending tool, this is largely adequate in combination with the schema.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds guidance on channel naming conventions (e.g., 'demo:orchestrator'), which provides useful context beyond the schema's generic 'Channel name' description. However, the description does not clarify the relationship between 'sender' and the bridge identity, or whether 'content' has size limits. The schema is doing the heavy lifting, and the description adds marginal but valuable guidance on channel format and purpose.

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 action ('Send a message'), the target ('a named channel on the Claude Bridge'), and who can read it ('the other agent can read it with bridge_receive'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like bridge_receive by explicitly naming the complementary tool. This is a specific verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool (to send a message to another agent) and gives naming conventions for channels ('descriptive channel names like 'demo:orchestrator' or 'demo:worker''). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools beyond bridge_receive, the sibling context is available and the naming examples are helpful for proper use.

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