hb_conn_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 usefully discloses the core side effect (queued, not sent over the network), but says nothing about persistence, auth requirements, whether queued messages are later delivered, or what happens on duplicates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The key behavioral constraint (queue, no network) appears immediately and every word earns its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should carry more behavioral weight for a mutation-style tool. It omits what the queued message becomes, the distinction between connector and target, and any return/confirmation semantics.

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 connector, message, and target. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema supplies, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 clear verb (queue) and resource (a message for a connector) plus a distinguishing scope constraint: no network delivery. That separates it from siblings like hb_conn_receive or hb_conn_status, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'without network delivery' hints at the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., vs hb_conn_receive). The agent must infer the routing decision on its own.

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