bus_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does so substantively: it reveals broadcast wake semantics, real-time delivery to inbox_wait-suspended receivers, automatic vector-memory sedimentation, and the message-id return value. It stops short of delivery guarantees and failure/queueing behavior, which would push it to a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the tool identity, then parameter capabilities, then behavioral effects and return value. No filler, though the packed comma/semicolon structure makes it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 7-parameter tool with zero annotations and no output schema, it covers the return value and key runtime behaviors well. It omits explicit routing to sibling tools, semantics for from/body, and failure/async behavior, leaving the agent to infer edge cases.

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 71%, leaving body and from undocumented in both schema and description; the description names all parameters but only adds real semantic weight to to (broadcast) and memory (auto-sedimentation). Much of what it says reinforces schema-entitled behavior rather than filling the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — message-bus send — and enumerates distinguishing features: memory vector sedimentation, broadcast via to="*", and real-time inbox_wait wake. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like agent_send_message, inbox_wait, and memory_add.

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 'full-capability' framing and feature list (broadcast, memory, kind/topic/priority) imply this is the advanced send variant, but no sibling is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. An agent must infer when to choose bus_send over agent_send_message or memory_add rather than being told.

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