broadcast_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful delivery behavior — the message is queued and each terminal receives it when next idle, with semantics 'exactly as send_session_message does' — but says nothing about permissions, failure handling, or whether queued messages can be retracted. Adequate but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 scoping rule is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the tool is short overall. The second paragraph's illustrative examples ('a change of plan', 'commit what you have and report') are somewhat conversational but do earn their place by pinning down typical payloads.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the addressing default is covered. However, for a no-annotation mutation tool with a 0% schema coverage, the description should say more about targeting precedence and side effects; it stops at delivery timing.

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 0% across all three parameters, so the description must compensate. It does explain the default behavior when no target is named ('the whole fleet'), but never clarifies the relationship between terminal_ids and session_names, whether both may be supplied, or what message content accepts. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Queue one message for many terminals at once') plus the scope default ('the whole fleet when none is named'), and explicitly contrasts with 'send_session_message', which handles the single-target case. The only blur is the terminal/session distinction, which the description never sorts out despite both being addressable parameters.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use context ('a change of plan, "commit what you have and report", a constraint you forgot') and implies the alternative is the single-target sibling. No explicit when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are stated, so it falls short of a 5.

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