bus_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that messages go to a shared room and explains the broadcast behavior when 'to' is empty. However, it does not reveal permissions, side effects, or return behavior, leaving gaps typical for a send 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?

Two sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action, the second explains the critical 'to' parameter. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It only explains one parameter and does not touch on required content format, sender behavior, or reply_to semantics, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without guessing.

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 only 20% (only 'to' has a description in the schema). The description explains the 'to' parameter but does not add semantics for content, sender, tags, or reply_to, which remain ambiguous despite self-explanatory names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Send') and resource ('shared room'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bus_read or bus_history. The addition about 'to' addressing specific roles further clarifies its purpose.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (when sending a message) and gives direct guidance on how to use the 'to' parameter for targeted vs broadcast sends. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, 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.