mailbox_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 states the broadcast includes the boss, which is useful, but it does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether recipients can reply, whether the broadcast creates permanent conversation threads, or whether it requires a special sender permission). 'Broadcast' implies message creation, but key context about delivery and feedback is missing.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and it front-loads the key scope ('every registered agent') immediately. It is brief and readable, though it sacrifices parameter semantics for brevity.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain more: the actual message format, expected delivery behavior, and success/failure indicators. For a broadcast tool with two required parameters and a semi-optional from_id, it leaves too much room for misinterpretation—especially around whether responses are expected or how broadcast history is tracked.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain what the subject and body parameters represent beyond obvious naming. from_id has a default but its purpose is unclear (who is broadcasting? How is it used?). The description adds no parameter-level detail, leaving the agent to guess formatting or optionality nuances.

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 a clear action ('Broadcast') and the target resource ('every registered agent, including boss'), which distinguishes it from other mailbox tools that send to a single recipient. It could be slightly more explicit about the difference from sibling tools, but the verb and scope are unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool—when you need to reach all registered agents—but does not explicitly contrast it with mailbox_send or mailbox_check. There's no when-not-to-use guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary based on the wording and sibling names.

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