msg_broadcast

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, delivery guarantees, whether the sender receives a copy, permissions, or error behavior—leaving the agent with only a surface-level understanding.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no redundant words. It is immediately understandable and scannable.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral description, the agent lacks essential operational context for a broadcast operation, such as delivery semantics, whether it is asynchronous, or what happens if no agents are registered. The schema provides parameter names but not behavioral richness.

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 provides descriptions for 3 of 4 parameters (body, sender, subject), with coverage at 75%. The 'priority' parameter is self-explanatory via enum/default. The tool description adds no parameter details, so the schema carries the weight, warranting a baseline score.

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 'Send a message to all registered agents' clearly specifies the action (send), the object (a message), and the scope (all registered agents). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like msg_send, which likely targets a specific recipient.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like msg_send. It only states what it does without any context on preferred scenarios or exclusions.

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