entangled_broadcast_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the broadcast scope (reaches all agent CLIs) and persistence ('once broadcasted... can read and leverage it'), but says nothing about permissions, overwrite/conflict behavior, deduplication, or whether the write is reversible.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the bracketed tag and the core action, with the second sentence adding the effect. No filler, though the branding tag consumes space without adding agent-relevant meaning.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter descriptions, the definition leaves an agent without guidance on the six input fields, permissions, or how this differs from entangled_send_message or entangled_query_knowledge.

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% across 6 parameters, so the schema provides no field-level meaning. The description only loosely hints at what content should contain; it says nothing about topic, tags, title, workspace, or author_agent, nor which fields are required versus optional.

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 ('shares knowledge... across ALL agent CLIs') and names concrete content types (findings, bug root-causes, architecture decisions). It implicitly contrasts with the read-side sibling entangled_query_knowledge by emphasizing that other agents can read what is broadcast, though it never names that alternative directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the listed content types (findings, root causes, architecture decisions), which suggest when to broadcast. However there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (send_message, query_knowledge) that an agent must choose between.

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