dispatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it covers key behaviors: sending, auto-expiry via ttl, must_read preventing auto-expiry, and the return of confirmation plus pending messages. It does not mention failure modes or delivery guarantees, but the core side effects are disclosed.

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 three sentences with no filler: the main action is front-loaded, and optional parameters are compactly summarized. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all optional parameters and the return value. Minor gaps remain around target identifier format and interaction with ack/peek/who, but the description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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. It explains priority values, thread grouping, reply_to references, payload as a dict, ttl in seconds, must_read preventing expiry, and target scope via 'another agent or all agents.' This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 or all agents.' This clearly differentiates dispatch from sibling tools like ack, peek, and who, which imply receiving, inspecting, and querying rather than sending.

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 operational guidance, such as using priority='urgent' for time-sensitive messages and explaining when to use optional fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the send-oriented purpose is unambiguous from the context.

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