Bus Send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-obvious routing behavior: bare names land in a shared queue read by all sessions, while `agent/slug` targets one session. This is useful beyond the basic send action, though it does not mention delivery guarantees or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds essential routing nuance.

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 11 parameters, a 100% schema-described input schema, and an output schema, the description does not need to restate parameters. It covers the most important non-obvious behavior for correct use, making it sufficiently complete, though it could add a note about asynchronous delivery.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics to the `to` parameter by explaining the difference between bare names and `agent/slug` addresses, going beyond the schema's terse examples.

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 the exact verb and resource: 'Send a message to another agent, or to one specific session of it.' This clearly distinguishes bus_send from siblings like bus_read, bus_inbox, and bus_status.

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 concrete addressing guidance: prefer `agent/slug` when the recipient has more than one session, and explains that a bare name goes to the shared queue every session reads. It gives clear context for choosing the recipient format, though it does not explicitly compare bus_send with non-obvious alternatives.

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