broadcast_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'broadcast' and lists use cases, but fails to disclose important behavioral traits like delivery guarantees, message persistence, ordering, error handling for invalid agent_ids, or whether the metadata parameter affects behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and use cases. Every phrase adds value and there is 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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (one nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It omits details about parameter constraints, behavior under failure, or expected results, making it insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 low (25% – only agent_ids has a description). The tool's description does not provide any additional parameter guidance beyond the schema. It does not explain the 'from' field, the expected 'content' format, or the 'metadata' usage, leaving critical ambiguity.

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 explicitly states '向多个 Agent 广播消息' (broadcast messages to multiple Agents), which clearly indicates the action and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like send_message by specifying broadcast to multiple agents, and lists use cases (task coordination, status sync, urgent notifications).

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 use contexts ('适用于任务协调、状态同步、紧急通知') that help the agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., send_message for one-to-one).

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