send_claude_message

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does meaningful work: it discloses message delivery timing, idle-agent resumption, prompt return, and where to collect results. It omits error conditions or auth requirements, but the core execution model is transparent.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct value: purpose, delivery behavior, and result-collection guidance. No fluff, front-loaded action, and the delivery mechanism is stated efficiently.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the important action and return-handling path ('Returns promptly. Wait on the same agent ID for results'). It omits validation or failure behavior, but the practical invocation loop is complete.

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 schema already documents agent_id with a meaningful description, while message only has a type. The description adds that this is a 'follow-up,' giving some context about message intent, but it does not specify format, length, or content expectations. At 50% schema coverage, more parameter detail would help, but the minimal extra is acceptable.

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 verb and resource: 'Send a follow-up to a Claude subagent.' This is clearly distinct from siblings such as spawn_claude_agent, cancel_claude_agent, and wait_claude_agents, and leaves little ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It provides clear operational context: running agents receive the message at the next boundary, idle agents resume with context, and the caller should 'Wait on the same agent ID for results.' It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives like ask_claude or saying when not to use it, but the intended use case is well conveyed.

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