agent_send

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only states the action and target. It does not mention potential side effects, delivery guarantees, prerequisites beyond getting the handle, or behavior on failure. This is a minimal disclosure for a send operation with network implications.

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, clearly worded sentence that front-loads the primary verb and object. It includes a useful cross-reference without unnecessary verbiage. 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, to whom, and where to find the handle. It does not elaborate on the nature of 'coordination messages' or outcomes, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequately 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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description appropriately avoids parameter details. The pointer to agents_list for obtaining the handle is useful context. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and nothing reduces this.

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 clearly states the action ('Sends a coordination message') and the target ('to an agent on ANOTHER of the user's machines'). It also differentiates from siblings by specifying cross-machine communication and references agents_list for obtaining the handle.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (sending a coordination message to another machine's agent) and a key prerequisite (get the handle from agents_list). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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