agent_broadcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behavioral aspects: it covers failure modes (WebSocket unavailable, no active recipient, ACK timeout), the retry fallback (saved to local retry queue), and the resulting response state (queued_for_retry). This is far beyond the baseline.

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 tight and well-structured: the first sentence states the action, the second covers use cases and failure behavior. No wasted words; each sentence carries high informational value.

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?

Given this is a simple broadcast tool with an output schema available, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage alternative, prerequisite, and failure handling. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 tool description should compensate, but it doesn't mention the parameters at all. The schema descriptions exist ('Isi pesan ke semua peer', 'Tipe pesan') but are minimal and in Indonesian, leaving msg_type semantics vague. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the 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 clearly states the action ('Send one message'), target ('all peers in the active room'), and mechanism ('through the Cloudflare relay'). It also explicitly contrasts with agent_send for one peer, making the tool's distinct scope unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('room-wide notices') and when to use an alternative ('use agent_send for one peer'). It also notes a precondition ('An active room is required'), giving concrete usage guidance.

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