directive_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals key non-obvious behavior: directives are broadcast, persistent enough that late-starting workers still see them, and can be scoped. This goes beyond the schema. It does not cover all side effects of each directive kind, but the core behavioral trait is clearly 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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and target appear in the first sentence, and the crucial broadcast/late-start distinction follows immediately. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description fully covers the central broadcast concept and scoping behavior, which are the most important non-obvious aspects. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented note/actor parameters, some operational context is missing. It is adequate but leaves room for more detail about what each directive kind actually does and how workers consume it.

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 only 40%, and the description only elaborates on 'scope'. It also names the kind values, but those are already visible in the schema enum. Parameters like 'note' and 'actor' receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving significant semantic gaps that the description should compensate for.

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 names a specific verb ('Broadcast') and a specific resource ('stop, pause, resume or rescan to every worker'). It differentiates this tool from point-to-point/addressed messaging and from siblings like directive_poll and directive_ack by emphasizing the broadcast and late-start visibility semantics.

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 clearly explains when to use this tool: whenever a directive must reach all workers, including those that start later. It contrasts this with point-to-point messaging and gives the scoping rule ('Scope it to a goal, or omit for all'), which is explicit usage guidance. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the broadcast-vs-addressed distinction provides clear direction.

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