bus_send

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses routing semantics but nothing about delivery guarantees (live push vs stored in an inbox), what happens when the named agent does not exist, whether the message is persisted, or any auth/rate constraints. For a write-style messaging tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves real behavioral questions open.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and with the broadcast case stated before the threading detail. Nothing is padded, though the compression contributes to the ambiguity around the 'agent' parameter.

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?

Five parameters, no annotations, no output schema and no schema descriptions make this a complex tool resting on a two-sentence description. Too little is said about the required 'agent' field, the 'channel' scope, or the result of the call for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description is the only source of meaning — and it only explains 'to' and 'threadId'. Critically, the required 'agent' parameter is never mentioned alongside 'to' (which defaults to '*'), leaving an agent unable to tell whether they duplicate or differ; 'body' and 'channel' (default 'general') are also unexplained.

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 and resource ('Send a message') and immediately covers both delivery modes: direct to one agent or broadcast via '*'. That distinguishes it from siblings like bus_inbox and bus_thread, though the overlapping required 'agent' parameter is not reconciled with 'to'.

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?

Gives concrete usage for the routing parameters ('to = its name' vs 'to = "*"') and for threadId as a reply mechanism, so the two main call patterns are discoverable. It offers no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like bus_comment_task or bus_create_task, nor any prerequisites such as whether the target agent must be registered first.

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