bridge_send

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the file-backed transport and that 'a watcher wakes the other side' (an asynchronous side effect), but says nothing about delivery guarantees, what happens if the recipient is not running, or how priority/reply_to affect delivery. Partial disclosure, so a middling score.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and channel, with the explanatory parenthetical earning its place by clarifying reachability. No filler.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context. It covers the transport and the wake-up mechanism but omits error/offline behavior, priority semantics, and what a caller can expect after sending — meaningful gaps for a handoff tool whose success is not self-evident.

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%, and the description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever — it never mentions content, subject, priority levels, or reply threading. The `to` enum, `from` default, and `reply_to` are documented in the schema, but `content`, `subject`, and `priority` semantics are left entirely to the caller, which is exactly the gap the description should fill.

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 and resource ('Send a message to another agent') and names the concrete channel ('the file-backed bridge'), then explains why the channel matters: Claude Code and agy cannot call each other directly. That rationale separates it from the agent_* siblings an agent might otherwise pick.

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 gives clear usage context — 'this is how you hand off or ask for help' — which tells the agent this is the cross-agent handoff path. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative (e.g. agent_send) or stating when NOT to use the bridge, so the agent still has to infer the boundary between this and agent_send.

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