pilot_broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavior: broadcasts only reach trusted peers, and untrusted peers silently drop the message. This is valuable context beyond a simple 'broadcast' definition.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by use cases and a trust caveat. Every sentence adds value; no filler or 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?

For a broadcast tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation. It covers purpose, usage scenarios, and a critical trust-related behavior. It doesn't explain return values, but that is not necessary given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward action.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by naming the default network ('The default data-exchange network is "9"'), which helps with network_id selection beyond the schema's generic example.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Broadcast a message to every peer in a Pilot network.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like pilot_send by emphasizing 'every peer' as the broadcast scope.

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?

It provides common use cases ('announce a capability, request collaborators, publish a status update') that clarify when to use broadcast. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'every peer' wording implicitly separates it from point-to-point tools like pilot_send.

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