agent_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'via Cloudflare relay' which hints at infrastructure, but doesn't disclose delivery guarantees, latency, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the peer is offline. The return value is mentioned but not explained ('JSON status pengiriman' - JSON delivery status).

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 appropriately brief with three sentences: purpose statement, args listing, and returns statement. Each sentence serves a distinct function. However, the parameter explanations could be more efficiently integrated rather than listed separately.

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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, error handling, and relationship to sibling tools. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need detailed explanation in the description.

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 lists the three parameters (peer_id, message, msg_type) and provides some semantic context: peer_id is 'Agent ID peer tujuan' (target peer agent ID), message is 'Isi pesan' (message content), and msg_type has possible values 'text'/'data'/'command'. However, it doesn't explain the differences between message types or provide examples.

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 ('Kirim pesan langsung' - Send message directly) and the target ('ke satu peer via Cloudflare relay' - to one peer via Cloudflare relay). It distinguishes from sibling 'agent_broadcast' by specifying 'to one peer' rather than broadcasting. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other messaging-related siblings like 'agent_read_inbox'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'agent_send' over 'agent_broadcast' for one-to-many communication, or how it relates to inbox/room/task tools. There's no context about prerequisites, error conditions, or typical use cases.

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