zmq_send_request

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It only says 'send a request' but does not state that the REQ socket blocks until a reply is received, or that timeout_ms controls this wait. The existence of an output schema partially compensates for return value, but the blocking nature is critical and omitted.

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, efficiently conveying the core action. It could include more detail without becoming verbose, so it is concise but not overly terse.

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 messaging tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the request-reply pattern, the need for a listener, or the blocking behavior. The schema and output schema fill some gaps, but the high-level interaction model is missing.

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 each parameter is documented. The tool description adds only the context of 'via ZMQ REQ socket', which is marginally useful but not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds little beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Send' and the resource 'a request via ZMQ REQ socket', which distinguishes it from siblings like zmq_listen_reply (listening) or zmq_publish (publish). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other request-based tools or mention the one-shot nature.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention that it requires a corresponding reply listener (e.g., zmq_listen_reply) or that it is for request-reply pattern only.

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