broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that execution is parallel and that the return value is a list of {agent_id, task_id}, which is useful. However, it does not mention whether the call blocks, whether delivery is acknowledged or guaranteed, or how failures with no running agents are handled—these remain unclear.

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 sentence with no redundant wording. It front-loads the key action and scope, then immediately gives the return shape. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description includes the essential return information and clarifies the parallel dispatch behavior. However, it omits edge cases such as behavior when no agents are running, possible errors, or whether the message is processed asynchronously, leaving minor gaps for an agent invoking it in a complex workflow.

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. The single parameter 'message' is intuitively mapped by the phrase 'Send a message', but the description adds no detail about constraints, formatting, or requiredness beyond what the schema already states. Since the parameter is simple and self-explanatory, this is mildly adequate rather than fully compensating.

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 specific verb ('Send') and a clearly scoped resource ('a message to all running agents in parallel'), which distinguishes it from siblings like assign_task or write_storage. The parallel/broadcast behavior removes ambiguity about the tool's 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?

The description implies the primary use case—messaging every running agent at once—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like assign_task for single-agent communication or write_storage for persistent data. There is no exclusionary guidance, but the 'all running agents' phrasing gives moderate contextual direction.

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