resend_all

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is scene-wide (not selective), but says nothing about idempotency, cost, whether it must follow a state change, or side effects on a running engine. Output schema existing means return values need not be covered here.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a parenthetical use case. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter action with an output schema, the description covers what it does and when to reach for it, which is close to sufficient. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (e.g. whether it must be called after set_scene) and what the broadcast actually covers, but nothing essential 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to explain or get wrong. Schema coverage is 100% and nothing in the schema requires description-side compensation.

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 (re-broadcast) and a clear resource scope (the whole scene), which distinguishes it from the targeted-send semantics implied by sibling send_osc. It does not explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides a concrete trigger scenario ('after restarting Max or the visual engine'), giving the agent a clear condition under which this tool is appropriate. It offers no exclusions or explicitly named alternatives (e.g. send_osc for single messages), so it stops short of 5.

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