broadcast_on

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Enable input broadcasting') but doesn't explain what 'input broadcasting' entails, what permissions are needed, whether it's reversible, or what side effects occur. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place in conveying essential information.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool that enables a potentially impactful feature like 'input broadcasting' with no annotations, the description should provide more context about what this feature does and its implications. The existence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but behavioral context is lacking.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. Baseline 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools.

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 ('Enable input broadcasting') and target ('to all sessions in the current tab'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'broadcast_off' by indicating the opposite state. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'broadcast_add' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 usage context ('in the current tab') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'broadcast_off' or 'broadcast_add'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios are mentioned, leaving usage guidance at an implied level.

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