broadcast

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

Beyond annotations (which indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation), the description reveals that the message appears in others' inbox during their next 'brief()' and is accessible via 'inbox()'. This adds valuable behavioral context about message visibility and retrieval. No information about reversibility or limits is provided, but the added context is substantial.

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 four sentences with the primary verb and purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second explains visibility mechanics, and the third lists use cases. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential behavior: what it does and how peers receive the message. It could mention potential limits (e.g., rate limiting) or persistence, but the provided context is sufficient for effective use.

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 single parameter 'content' has 0% schema description coverage; the description only implies it is the message text. While the tool is simple and the meaning is clear from the tool name and description, no additional constraints (e.g., max length, format) are given. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the low coverage but adequate implied semantics.

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 states 'Post a message visible to ALL concurrent claude conversations,' clearly specifying the verb (Post) and resource (message) with a precise scope. It distinguishes from siblings like 'whisper' or 'note' by emphasizing broadcast to all sessions, and provides concrete use cases.

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 explicitly lists appropriate use cases ('shared insights, status updates, work claims, anything you'd want sibling sessions to know'), offering clear context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative tools like 'whisper' for targeted messages, which would strengthen guidance.

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