agent_send

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses meaningful failure semantics: when WebSocket is unavailable, delivery is unacknowledged, or ACK times out, the message is saved in a local retry queue and the response reports queued_for_retry. This adds significant behavioral context beyond a simple send, though it omits details like success response shape or authorization requirements.

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 short sentences: first states the purpose, second provides usage guidance and sibling differentiation, third details the retry fallback behavior. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy or filler.

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 moderate-complexity messaging tool, the description covers key contextual points: single recipient vs broadcast, active-room requirement, and retry queue behavior. It does not enumerate msg_type options or success response details, but the input schema and the note about the queued_for_retry response partially compensate. With no annotations, a bit more detail about the output could make it fully complete.

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?

Context signals schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters peer_id, message, or msg_type. It only implies recipient and message content through the phrase 'Send a direct message.' The optional msg_type parameter and its allowed values ('text'/'data'/'command') are not mentioned in the description, leaving the agent without semantic guidance if the schema descriptions are considered absent.

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?

Description states specific action: 'Send a direct message to one peer in the active room through the Cloudflare relay.' It names the verb, resource (peer), scope (one), and channel. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling agent_broadcast by noting 'use agent_broadcast for all peers.'

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use for a single recipient; use agent_broadcast for all peers.' It also states the prerequisite 'An active room is required,' providing clear when-to-use context and directing to the alternative tool.

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