actor_broadcast

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the action and target; it does not reveal whether delivery is asynchronous or synchronous, how failures are handled, whether the message is copied per actor, or what side effects occur. This is a significant gap for a side-effecting operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope, which is ideal for a tool of this simplicity.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves important decisions to the agent: when to use broadcast versus targeted send, what message semantics are expected, and what the runtime behavior will be. The agent can infer the basic call shape but not the operational 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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond calling it 'a message'. It does not explain the required 'type' field, how 'payload' is used, or what message values are valid. With only one parameter, the description should compensate more for the schema's lack of detail.

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 states a specific action ('Broadcast'), the resource ('a message'), and the exact scope ('all registered actors in the current ActorSystem'). It is clear and implicitly contrasts with the sibling 'actor_send_message', which likely targets a single actor, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 phrase 'all registered actors' implies the fan-out use case, and the sibling actor_send_message suggests a single-target alternative, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over targeted messaging or describe any prerequisites. Usage guidance is mostly left to inference.

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