broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Send a message to all agents') but doesn't describe important behavioral traits: whether this is a synchronous or asynchronous operation, what happens if agents are offline, whether there are rate limits, what permissions are required, or what the response looks like. The example shows parameter usage but doesn't explain system behavior.

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 appropriately brief with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by a usage example. Every element serves a purpose, though the example could be integrated more smoothly. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address key contextual questions: what format the message takes, how agents receive it, whether delivery is guaranteed, what happens on failure, or what the tool returns. The example helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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 thoroughly. The description's example shows parameter usage but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain why one would use 'namespace' for isolation or when 'from_agent' should be specified versus omitted.

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 resource ('a message to all agents'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'send' or 'reply', but the 'to all agents' scope provides some distinction. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 versus alternatives like 'send' or 'reply'. It includes a usage example but doesn't explain the appropriate context, prerequisites, or exclusions for using broadcast versus other messaging tools. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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