herdr_relay

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it returns a 'durable receipt' and implies submission, but it does not disclose whether the action is synchronous or asynchronous, any side effects on the agent lease, permission requirements, or how the receipt is stored or retrieved. This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 with no filler words. It states the action and outcome efficiently. It could have added more details, but as far as conciseness, it is well-structured and does not bury key information.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of the controller_* parameters, the conditions required to use the tool (e.g., must have an active lease), what a 'durable receipt' means, or how to later collect the result. An agent would need to infer too much about prerequisites and expected behavior.

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 coverage is 50% (only text, submit, and target have descriptions). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, and it especially fails to clarify the controller_* parameters (controller_id, controller_lease_id, controller_fence_token) that lack schema descriptions. Given the low coverage, the description should have compensated but does not.

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 (submit a prompt), the target (one active leased agent), and the outcome (return a durable receipt for later collection). It is specific and unambiguous, and it differentiates from sibling tools like herdr_agent_read (reading) and herdr_handoff (handoffs) by focusing on submission with a receipt.

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 implies the primary use case: when you want to submit a prompt and get a receipt. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like herdr_agent_wait or herdr_handoff. The context makes it clear for submission, but there is no explicit routing guidance.

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