bus_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and discloses two meaningful behaviors: persistence to SQLite (durability) and immediate recipient wakeup (side effect). It stops short of explaining delivery guarantees, failure modes, or whether the call blocks.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core action is front-loaded and the second sentence adds behavioral nuance 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?

Adequate for a messaging tool: purpose, durability, and wakeup behavior are covered, and the schema documents all 5 parameters. Gaps remain since there is no output schema and the description never mentions the return value, acknowledgment, or error behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter (to, topic, content, from_agent, conversation_id) already has descriptive meaning in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Send a message to another agent on the universal agent bus.' This clearly differentiates from siblings like bus_inbox, bus_wait_message, and bus_history, which handle receiving, waiting, and history respectively.

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 implies urgency through 'triggers the recipient's doorbell for immediate wakeup,' hinting this tool is for time-sensitive agent-to-agent communication. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to prefer bus_inbox or bus_wait_message.

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